Evaluating development impact with case study for town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastalzone
Information
Center

AST NIL
CENTER

IEW&L

HT
168
L
asta' Zone
CIOnformation
Centerj

.C48
P48
1976

A@IICITY

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

EVALUATING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

with Case Study for

TOWN OF CHELMSFORD, MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs

Local Assistance Series

Publication No. 3

U - SDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

February,. 1976

Property of CSC Library

This Report was Prepared by

Philip B. Herr & Associates
230 Boylston-Street
Boston, Massachusetts

Under Contract to the

Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs
Division of Community Services
Office of Local Assistance
1 Ashburton Place
Boston, Massachusetts

Constantine Yankopoulos, Chief Planning Officer
David Dronsick, Contract Liaison Officer

Prepared for

the Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts

February, 1976

The preparation of this report was financed in part through a
Comprehensive Planning Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, under the provisions of Section 701 of the
Housing Act of 1954, as amended.

PREFACE

This report is part of a special series of local assistance
studies undertaken by the Community Planning and Management Section,
Office of Local Assistance, of the Massachusetts Department of Com-
munity Affairs, financed in part through the Federal HUD 701 Planning
and Management Assistance Program. This series of studies repre-
sents a departure from previous efforts of the Department in pro-
viding technical assistance to Massachusetts communities under 50,000
population. Earlier efforts of the DCA concentrated limited staff
and consultant resourd@es to produce long-term (1 to 2 year) master
plan studies for only a few of the Commonwealth's cities and towns
each year. In contrast to this former approach, DCA's delivery of
technical assistance now concentrates short-term efforts on address-*
ing urgent local issues of state-wide significance, through the use
of the case study or model approach.

A key element in this style of technical service delivery is
that DCA staff and consultants attempt to achieve solutions which
might help many communities by gaining concrete and practical in-
.sights into a problem in the context of a given community. In this
way, other communities facingsimilar problems can benefit from the
work performed in the model community.

This study concentrates on the problem of evaluating develop-
ment impact, and the model community was the town of Chelmsford.
Other studies conducted as part of this new service and the commun-
ities inwhich they were carried out are as follows: Establishing
a Department of Community Development, Peabody; Preserving Agri-
cultural Land, Westfield; Developing a Land Use Management Process,
Mashpe.e; Organizing for Economic Development, Wareham; Monitoring
Change in Residential Neighborhoods, Melrose; Revitalizing Small
Town CBDs, Millbury; and Evaluating Reuse Options for Large Insti-
tutional Land Holdings, Lenox. These projects were selected by DCA'
from among 70 applications by over 50 municipalities under 50,000
population from across the state.

The Planning and Management Section of.the Office of Local
Assistance wishes to acknowledg'e.the contribut.ion of the many local
officials and citizens who were involved in these studies.. Without
@their interest, cooperation,Iand critique, these studies would not
be as meaningful to you.

We urge you to contact the Office of Local Assistance for
further information if your community is considering action in the
area covered in this report. Let us know too if you find these
studies useful or have any suggestions in improving DCA's new pro-
.gram of technical assistance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

Chapter 1. PROCESS OF IMPACT ANALYSIS .................. 3

Chapter IA. IMPACT SUMMARY: DRUM HILL REZONING ......... 22

Chapter 2. TRAFFIC IMPACTS ............................. 35

Chapter 2A. TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING ....... 54

Chapter 3. FISCAL IMPACTS .............................. 65

Chapter 3A. FISCAL IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING ........ 88

Chapter 4. PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACTS ..................... 96

Chapter 4A. PUBLIC FACILITYIMPACTS OF DRUM HILL
REZONING .................................... 109

Chapter 5. ECONOMIC IMPACTS ............................ 112

Chapter 5A. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING ...... 128

Chapter 6. SOCIAL IMPACTS ............................... 137

Chapter 6A. SOCIAL IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING ........ 153

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... .......... 154

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 (SAMPLE) IMPACT CHECKLIST .......................... 8

1A-1 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .............................. 23
IA-2 TAX RATE CHANGE .................................... 25
1A-3 EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ................................. 27
IA-4 CONSEQUENCES OF REZONING ........................... 30

2-1 AVERAGE DA-ILY TRAFFIC BY LAND USE .................. 37
2-2 COMMON TRAFFIC VOLUMES ............................. 41
2-3 SUGGESTED SIGHT DISTANCES FROM DRIVEWAY ............ 44
2-4 EVENING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC .......................... 46
2-5 UNUSUAL PEAK TRAFFIC TIMING ........................ 46
2-6 LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................. 48
2-7 MAJOR TRAFFIC GENERATORS ........................... 51

2A-1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FROM DEVELOPMENT AT
DRUM HILL .......................................... 57
2A-2 GENERAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FOR SHOPPING CENTER ... 58
2A-3 INCREASE IN DAILY TRAFFIC AT CRITICAL LOCATIONS .... 59
2A-4 POSSIBLE FUTURE CONGESTION AT CRITICAL LOCATIONS ... 60
2A-5 TRAFFIC INCREASES AT HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS ........... 62
2A-6 TRUCK TRIPS ........................................ 64

3-1 NUMBER OF PUPILS PER UNIT: IMPORTANT FACTORS ....... 72
3-2 TYPICAL NUMBER OF PUPILS PER NEW DWELLING UNIT ..... 73
373 NUMBER OF PUPILS PER UNIT, BY BEDROOMS ............. 73
3-4 SCHOOL AID CHANGE .................................. 80
3-5 SAMPLE FORMAT: TAX RATECHANGE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT .. 84

3A-1 ESTIMATED TAX RATE CHANGE .......................... 89
3A-2 REVENUES ........................................... 90
3A-3 NON-SCHOOL COSTS ................................... 91
3A-4 STATE SCHOOL AID LOSS .............................. 92
3A-5 TAX RATE CHANGE, IF FULL DEVELOPMENT ............... 95

4-1 LIKELIHOOD OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM .................. 100
4-2 LIKELIHOOD OF PUBLIC SEWERAGE ...................... 104
4-3 JUSTIFICATION FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ........... 106
4-4 SOLID WASTE GENERATED BY BUSINESSES ................ 107
4-5 PROXIMITY OF FIRE STATIONS ......................... 108

5-1 EST. CONSTRUCTION JOBS BY BUILDING TYPE ............ 115
5-2 SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE ........................... 116
5-3 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES IN MASSACHUSETTS, 1974 ........ 119
5-4 OCCUPATIONS"FOR DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES ............... 121

LIST OF TABLES (cont.)

Table Page

5A-1 ESTIMATED PERMANENT JOBS ........................... 129
5A-2 CONSTRUCTION JOBS: MAN-YEARS LABOR ON-SITE ......... 130
5A-3 PERMANENT JOBS IF SITE DEVELOPED ........ I ........... 131
5A-4 POSSIBLE JOB CHARACTERISTICS ....................... 132
5A-5 OCCUPATIONS ........................................ 133
.5A-6 EFFECT OF SHOPPING CENTER ON CHELMSFORD STORES ..... 135

6-1 PERSONS PER NEW UNIT ............................... 141
6-2 POPULAT10N CHARACTERISTICS, NEW AND OLD DWELLINGS
(BOSTON SMSA BUT NOT.IN BOSTON CITY, 1970) ......... 147
6-3 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, 1975 ......................... 150

LIST OF FIGURES
Following
figure Page

I PROPOSED ZONING AND PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER ....... 22

2 SAMPLE TRIP DISTRUBUTION FOR A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ........................................ 39

3 LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................. 48

4 SHOPPING CENTER TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION ............... 58

5 CRITICAL LOCATIONS .................................. 59

6 SHOPPING CENTER.EGRESSES ........... ........... 62

INTRODUCTION

This.book is intended as a practical guide for local govern-
nients analyzing impacts of major development proposals. it provides
a general approach to impact analysis, suggests methods, points out
key issues, and provides background information.

This guidebook was prepared with the financial support of the
U@01@,S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of
Local Assistance of the Massachusetts Department of Community
Affairs, and the Chelmsford Planning Board. D.C.A. and the Planning
Board determined the nature and scope of the effort and provided
advice, criticism and technical assistance.,

The subject is vast. This guidebook can only deal with some
of the important issues. It focuses on:

1. Massachusetts, with methods appropriate for the state's
fiscal system, zoning and land use controls; Massachusetts sources
are used where available.

2. Small communities, with less than 50,000 people.

3. Specific development proposals, for particular sites,
not long-range comprehensive plans for the whole community.

4. External impacts_of the development.on the rest of the com-
munity, rather than internal issues such as traffic circulation
within the site.

5. Local impacts of the development, not effects on the region
or state; the regional planning agency, Office of State Planning,
and D.C.A. can help evaluate broader impacts of development.

6. Fiscal, traffic, public facility, economic and social
impacts, notimpacts on the natural environment, hard-to-predict
social/psychological effects (sociability, crime), compliance with
local plans, or changes in government operations (police patrol
patterns, snow plow routes, etc.) except where they affect1he tax
rate or require new facilities.

7. Methods for use by local officials and citizens to identify
major impacts of a Proposal, rather than more elaborate and tech-
nical approaches; professional analysis is suggested where
appropriate.

8. Local procedures and regulations to provide a framework
for impact analyses.

How to Use This Book

This guidebook covers a wide range of issues and possible
situations. it is. designed more for reference than for reading
cover to cover. Organization is as follows.

a. The first chapter describes an overall approach to prepare
for, conduct, and interpret findings of impact studies.

b. "How to do it" chapters deal with particular issues:
.e.g., fiscal impacts, traffic impacts. Only some of the sections
will be relevant for any particular proposal.

C. Each of these methods is illustrated by applying it to a
commercial rezoning proposal at Drum Hill in Chelmsford.

CHAPTER I

PROCESS OF IMPACT ANALYSIS

Communities are often confronted with major development pro-
posals whose effects are large, mixed, unclear, perhapshotly dis-
puted. A careful and systematic consideration of the consequences
of the proposal will help to:

1. Inform local discussion and understanding of the proposal;

2. Bring issues out into the open and deal with them
explicitly;

.3. Suggest ways of changing the proposal so that it becomes
more responsive to local needs;

4. Inform and help justify the public decision, e.g., a
zoning amendment, special permit 'variance, subdivision plan
approval or urban renewal project*;

5.. Plan for accommodating the new development by identifying
public facilities that may need to be built or extended; and

6. Identify local issues which go beyond the particular
development proposal, suggesting an agenda for community action
(e.g., revising zoning requirements, studying certain public facil-
ities in more depth); analysis of a specific and perhaps contro-
versial major development can provide the concreteness and sense of
urgency that suggestions in general planning-documents such as a
Master Plan sometimes lack.

Impact.analysis should not be used, however, to delay a pro-
posal to death. Where imposed simply as an extra "hurdle",
analysis is unfair to the developer, legally questionableand
often wastes the developer's and community's time, money and
energy**.

Impact analysis can,be most,effective when treated as an inte-
gral part:.of the community decision-making process. Timing, con-
tents and method of preparation should all be keyed to that
process. Following is a step-by-step discussion of how a community
mi ght use impact analysis to aid local decisions***.

*Analysis may also be helpful for local input into a state or'fed-
eral decision such as the State Housing Appeal Committee's decision
on a Ch. 774 low and moderate-income housing project.
**Extra delays,icanl:be4avoided in some cases by conducting impact
studies as part of special permit or site plan review procedures
or at the same time as (and input into) a federally or state-
imposed environmental assessment procedure.
***A valuable book on.this subject is Philip Schaenman, and Thomas
Muller, Measuring Impacts of Land Development, Washington, DX.:
Urban Institute, 1974.

STEP 1. PREPARE FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

The following actions can be taken before the community is
faced with a major'proposal (not all are relevant or needed in
any one community).

1.1 Amend Regulations to Control Impacts

Many potential development impacts are ordinarily controlled
by standards in the zoning bylaw and subdivision regulations, such
as those dealing with off-street parking, noise and vibration levels,
number of units in each multi-family structure, drainage and ero-
sion. Parking impacts, for example, can be confined to the site by
adequate off-street-parking requirements. Wherever clear and
generally applicable standards are possible, they provide the
simplest and most efficient way to control impacts.

1.2 Amend Regulations to Allow Discretionary Decisions

It is often appropriate to require a Special Permit or other
discretionary review and approval for major developments (rather
than allow them outright). The Special Permit process enables
officials to analyze a specific development proposal, obtain
detailed information from the developer, learn the views of in-
terested parties through a public hearing, attach conditions (as
suggested by the analysis) and'make a discretionary decision.

Special Permits are appropriately required for developments
likely to have significant effects on the community. These effects
may be related to the size of the development (more than so many
.dwelling units or square .feet), its traffic flow *, its use (e.g.,
an explosives factory, whatever its size), or its geographic loca-
tion (wetlands, steep slopesete.).

1.3 Amend Regulations to Require Impact Data

Site plan review, Special Permit, and subdivision submission
requirements can require the developer to detail major development
and to conduct at least some of the analyses**.

Such submission requirements should make clear in advance
exactly what information and analyses are required. The scope
of that information and.analysis should. be reasonably related to
the scale of the proposal.

*Major traffic generators which might be subject to Specia I Permit
are listed in the Traffic Impacts chapter.
**Special Permit requirements for traffic data are illustrated on
page 53.

1.4 Amend-Regulations to Link Approvals to Impacts

Impact criteria can be specified in local zoning as the
basis for Special Permit approval*. These criteria provide an ob-
vious focus for the analysis**. Ways of relating criteria to per-
mit approval include:

a. Individual guidelines, each of which should be satisfied,
such as, "Shopping centers should be so located that traffic is not
increased 50% or more above current average daily traffic volumes ...
and "vehicles egressing from shopping centers shall have at least
400 feet visibility in each travel direction", etc.; or

b. Impacts which must be balanced in the decision; for
example:

"Special permits shall be granted by the Board of Appeals
only uponits written determination that the proposed use will
not have adverse effects which overbalance its beneficial
effects on either the neighborhood or the town, in view of
the particular characteristics of the site and of the proposal
in relation to that site. The determination shall indicate
*deration of each of the following:
consl

a) Social,economic, or community needs which are served
by the development;

b) Traffic flow and safety;

c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services;

d) Neighborhood character and social structure;

e) Qualities of the natural environment;

f) Pote ntial fiscal impact."

1.5 Pre-Arrange for Technical Assistance

Major development proposals occur on an irregular basis. it
is valuable for the community to have an on-going arrangement to
provide capabilities for conducting.such analyses. This can avoid
last-minute scrambling and enablethe experience of each impact
analysis to simplify the next.

*The new state zoning law also provides that impact criteria shall
be the basis for allocating density bonuses in cluster develop-
ments (Ch. 808, Acts of 1975).
**Possible criteria for phasing residential development are shown
on.page 144.

The analyst's role is to structure study efforts, conduct spe-
cific studies, obtain and review data from other public agencies
and the developer, summarize findings in charts or writing, and
report back to and work with the agency responsible for the
analysis.

Larger communities generally assign planning department staff
to this task. Some small communities retain an outside professional
for these contingencies as well as for other technical assistance.
A regional planning agency can provide similar services for its
member communities.

A non-professional may also serve as the analyst. Such non-
professional might be a Planning Board member, C.E.T.A. employee,
other municipal official or employee, or private citizen who is
interested in the subject, willing to invest time and energy,
willing to tackle a wide range of issues and deal with numbers,
and who is widely regarded as unbiased.

1.6 Build Local Data Base

It is valuable for a commun ity to have an extensive, well-
organized data base before development .proposals are made. Analysis
can then be conducted quickly and efficiently.

Impact analysis relies heavily on such data as tax rates,
levies and assessments; school enrollments; traffic volumes and
accident records; water consumption and capacity; building permits;
capital improvement plans; housing and population data; studies of
existing developments in the community. Where such data does not
exist or is.hard to obtain, impact analyses become time-consuming
or superficial.

This data base can.be assembled and expanded by major all-at-
once efforts such as Master Plans and/or by regularly keeping and
updating such information (perhaps a function of a local person
who,conducts inpact analyses).

1.7 Define Community Objectives, Prepare Impact Checklist

Development should be evaluated in terms of local needs and
objectives. It is important to spell these objectives out in
advance in order that proposals can be initially designed to re-
flect local concerns, and in order to give.better assurance of
fairness and consistency in decisions. Local objectives can be
documented in a variety of ways, such as by formulating:

- a formal community growth policy or Master Plan;

- local response to the 1976 State Growth Policy Questionnaire;

- specific criteria for the public decision (Special Permit,
site plan review);

a checklist to review development proposals; a sample check-
list is shown on page 8, but should be adjusted to reflect local..
.concerns.

STEP 2. SCREEN PROPOSALS

Development proposals are presented to a public agency, which
must then decide how to review each. Some deserve detailed study.
Others,usually the vast majority, do not. The following approach
can be used to sort out proposals and7d-eter'mine an appropriate
review process for each.

2.1 Informal Review by Agency

.Officials can quickly screen all proposals, selecting out for
further review those proposals which seem important or of uncertain
merit or controversial.

2.2 Formal Review by Agency, Using Checklist

Those selected proposals can then be screened more formally
with a comprehensive checklist,(such as the one on page 8 ).
'Look for potentially significant impacts and guess whether each
will be good or bad (value judgments are built into some items:
job opportunities presumably are good, traffic hazards bad).

Proposals can then be sorted into two groups:

a. Those not needing further study because their significant
impact s are easy to predict, or are almost all good or all bad,
or are very limited in number; 'for such proposals, the filled-in
checklist may itself be a useful aid in the public decision.

b. Those needing further analysis to clarify critical impacts
or the balance among them.

2.3 Decide Scope of Citizen Participation (If Any)

The public agency should decide how to engage citizen partici-
pation in the impact anAlysis process. It is often valuable to
hear from local residents early in the analysis process. They can
help identify the issues thAt deserve the most attention before
large amounts of time and energy are invested. Too often, the
final public hearing reveals that the issues studied in the most
detail were not the ones people were really concerned about.

Participation can be relatively brief or extensive.

a. Informal Hearings. An informal public neeting could be
scheduled to hear from neighbors of the proposed development and
others who are interested. After the studies are conducted, pre-
liminary findings should be presented to another public meeting,
to allow input into the final conclusions.

Table 1-1
(SAMPLE) IMPACT CHECKLIST

-IFp-act likely to.be
Significant
Not Don't Deserves further For method
Impact on Significant Good Bad Know s iy@y_by see page

.Traffic

Congestion at peak hour 45
Safety hazards 43
Quality of life on nearby
,streets 50

Municipal Finances

Local tax rate 68
Bonded indebtedness 83

00 Public Facilities

Need for major school
additions or construction 97
Need for major improvements
in public water system 99
Need for major improvements
in public sewer system 103
Need for major improvements
in public recreation
facilities 98
Need for major improvements
in other public
facilities. Specify:
105-108

Table 1-1 (cont.)

Impact likely T-5 be
Sig-nificant
Not Don't Deserves further For method
Impact_ On Significant Good Bad Know study by see page

Economy

Increase in job
opportunities 114
Type of job opportunities 118
Sales level of existing
businesses 118
Entrepreneurial opportuni-
ties 123
Diversity of the local
economy, other long-
term effects 123
Nearby property values 124

Social Character

Community population,
total and growth rate 139
Local housing supply, range
of choice, especially for
low and moderate income
residents 146
Local government structure,
style 149
Community amenities, e.g.,
range of shops, facilities;
historic sites 151
Visual character of area 152
Image of community held by
residents and.outsiders 152

Table 1-1 (cont.)

Impact likely to be
Significant
Not Don't Deserves further For method
Impact on Significant Good Bad Know study by see page

Community Qrowt.h and Planning

Departure from Master Plan or
community growth policy a
Site valuable for (or well-
s(litdd:-to) other kinds of
development a
Precedents for future
public decisions a
Spatial pattern of growth
in the community a
Stimulus to further
development a

Natural Environment

Level of air pollutants a,b
Groundwater and surface
water quality (e.g.,
"highest safe use") a,b
Noise and vibration level
in vicinity a,b
.Erosion on and off-site a,b
Risk and damage qf natural
disaster (e.g., by building
on a flood plain) a,b
Ecological stability of
fragile areas (such as
dunes and wetlands) a,b
Groundwater level a,b
Wildlife habitats a,.b
'Natural vegetation, espe-
cially unusual species
and mature trees a,b

aNot dealt with in this guidebook.
bSee bibliography for some sources.

b. Citizen Panels to Guide Studies. More extensive participa-
tion may be valuable where the development is very large and contro-
versial. An underlying issue in such cases is often public distrust
of the developer and, sometimes, of local officials. An ordinary
technical analysis prepared by a small set of public officials
(whether or not helped by outside technicians) is then likely to be
seen as biased or only marginally relevant to the controversy.

Citizen panels can be established to guide the studies, pro-
viding input,and review at each stage in the analysis. Such a
process can help build public understanding and trust. The result-
ing analysis is likely to be much more sensitive to local concerns,
focused on critical issues, and respected in the community than one
prepared by technicians without such involvement.

Structuring and carrying out such a participatory program re-
qu ires time (probably 2 to 3 months), careful design, and substantial
technical input. Organization has to be arranged so that results
are not biased (or vie-wed as being biased) by self-selection of
participants. Participants need an adequate opportunity to develop
understanding of the proposal being considered. They need arn
opportunity for dialogue, preferably first with people having
similar interests, later with people having divergent ones. Their
process@should be documented at each step of the way. Fina lly, all
this needs to be made engaging and rewarding, or all but the most
committed (biased?) will drop out.

STEP 3. FRAME ISSUES

The next step is to clearly structure the study effort. This
involves:

- defining the proposal;

- defining the alternative(s);

- choosing the issues that deserve detailed attention;

- choosing who will give them that attention.

3.1 Define What is to be Analyzed

In most cases, it is not a specific development, but rather
the probable consequences of a public decision which should be
analyzed. The decision may be to approve a specific development
plan (such as submitted for a Special Permit) or rezoning of a
parcel-, or rezoning of a larger area. It is the consequence of
that decision which is to be analyzed. In most cases, that isn't
the same as analyzing what the developer may describe as his in-
tended development, since:

a. The develop er may not actually be able to.carry out his
intent because of unforeseen market, financing, or other contin-
gencies.

b. The developer may not even intend carrying out the proposal
he illustrates. Rezoning almost never carries a commitment to a
specific scheme, and even Special Permits often allow a wide range
of alternatives under them.

C. Some part of what is proposed might not depend upon the
present decision, perhaps because that part already has all neces-
sary approvals, or is located in another jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is necessary to carefully define exactly what
is to be analyzed. In some cases, it will bethe developer's pro-
posal or some modification of it. In other cases, it will be the
best or worst expectable outcome possible under the requested
approval. Potential development should at least be defined as.to
type of land use, intensity of use (number of dwelling units or
square feet) and location of egresses..

3'.2 Define Alternative(s)

In the same way, consider what will happen if the proposal is
rejected. The following development consequences may be important:

a. what is likely to be built on the site otherwise (e.g.,
under current zoning);

b. the possibility that turning down the proposal will simply
shift the development to another site in the community or region
(where effects on your community may be the same, better, or worse)*.

Where relevant, such alternative(s) should be roughly spelled
out (in the same way as described for the proposal).

3.3 Choose Issues that Deserve Detailed Attention

Not all issues can or should be studied in detail. Study
effort should focus on those issues where analysis would be most
helpful, including those which meet all the following:

a. relevant to the pub lic decision; for example, fiscal im-
pacts are appropriately considered when rezoning, not when review-
ing a subdivision plan;

b. can and need to be clarified by technical analysis; some
impacts may already be clear, others so elusive that potential
analysis would not be very useful;

*Economic consequences of shifting development are briefly dis-
cussed on page 112.,

c. of particular local concern; e.g., water and school im-
pacts where those are major local problems; and

d. are likely to be significantly affected by the development
proposal.(significant impacts may already have been quickly identi-
fied when going through the checklist to screen the proposal).
NOTE: don't ignore issues for which methods have not been
described in this guidebook (e.g., impacts on the environment*, on
community growth and planning*, and on the region and state).

Sources for identifying significant impacts include:

- Residents' concerns emerging from participatory efforts;

- Local experience of similar developments including the con-
cerns they raised and their actual impacts;

- The discussion in this guidebook of key development attri-
butes which affect each type of impact;

- Analogy with the experience of other communities which have
.had a similar development; if a I million square foot shopping
center is proposed, it might be revealing to contact Burlington,
for example, to find out what unanticipated impacts occurred there.

Issues should be framed as specifically as possible, in order
to focus study effort. For example, the sample checklist breaks
"traffic" down into more specific issues of peak hour congestion,
safety hazards, and street character. Especially where there is con-
troversy, it is useful to agree on what issues are being debated.

3.4 Choose Who Will Study Each Issue

Indicate who will study each issue, in order to allocate bud-
get and responsibilities and to get the effort underway.

Studies may be provided and paid for by the community, by the
developer, or by both together. It is generally valuable for a
single person (or organization) to be in charge of the overall
effort, but particular issues may be assigned to a public agency
(e.g., school department, conservation commission), the developer's
architectsland engineers, or other specialists.

STEP.4. ANALYZE ISSUES

4.1 Key Questions.

Analysis should address the following questions:

a. What are the outcomes if the proposal is accepted, and
what are they if it is rejected?

*See sample checklist for some specific impact measures.

b. What are the timing and likelihood of outcomes for each
option? It is important to people (as well as to budgets and pub-
lic facility plans) whether impacts are expected in 5 years or in
20 years*.

c. Who will be most affected? Elderly may benefit differently
from teen-agers, workers from businessmen. Many proposals are
economically and fiscally good for the community as a whole, but
impose traffic and aesthetic burdens on the surrounding neighbor-
hood. Effects on different groups in the community should be
distinguished.

d. What changes in the proposal would make its impacts
better? Identifying critical aspects of the development (e.g.,
phasing schedule, entrance location, mix of units) is often the
most valuable part of the study. It enables the government to
(1) negotiate with the developer for design modifications,
(2) insist on guarantees that the good features of the proposal
actually get built, and (3)-.-@set conditions and qualifications when
approving the proposal.

4.2 Methods

The level of detail appropriate for analysis will vary from
one issue to another, depending on its importance, the available
data, and the skills of the analyst... Very extensive:or :
precise analysis is. not usually needed since the aim is simply to
clarify the public decision. It should be kept in mind that the
precision of the analysis is often limited by unreducible uncer-
tainty of a key element, making great precision in other parts of
the analysis irrelevant.

Specific study methods are outlined in later chapters. In
general, studies should be based on:

- quantification where reasonable; approximate numbers and
rough estimates are often all that is needed or useful;

- thinking through other qualitative impacts; issues should
not be ignored because they are hard to quantify.

*Forthose comfortable with them, there are more sophisticiated
quantitative approaches for dealing with uncertainty and timing
of consequences, such as decision theory and present value
analysis. See, for example, Howard Raiffa, Decision Analysis
Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty, Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley-, 1-968;- James Van Horne, Finan-ial Management
and Policy, Prentice-Hall, 1974. Such non-intuitive approaches
may, however, discourage many citizens from trying to understand
the analysis.

STEP 5. INTEGRATE FINDINGS

Results of all the studies should be integrated and reported,
through meetings, charts, text. Often, a brief summary report is
prepared for wide distribution, along with a technical appendix
detailing all studies. Whatever means are used, the aim is to make
consequences of the public decision as clear as possible. The
following aspects are involved.

5.1- Compare Alternatives
The outcome of approving and of rejecting the proposal should
be contrasted. A summary table or chart can bring together all
consequences for easy reference. Some possible formats are shown
on the next page.

In comparing impacts, it is generally useful to:

a. indicate all significant impacts (including obvious ones),
not just those studied in detail;

b. where impacts are still unclear or unknown, that too
should be indicated (in table format, a simple "?" is quite
eloquent);

C. show how large each impact would be (in table format,
simple orders of magnitude are often best; the.bottom example shows
largei@effects',in,capital letters so they stand out);

d. indicate how good or bad each impact would be (or to what
extent the proposal is bdtter;.)or worse than the alternative); where
vAlue judgments are involved, the amount of change can be described;

e. where appropriate, note who would be affected by the im-
pact;

f. where appropriate, suggest the relative likelihood of the
impact occurring under each option (for example, one might show the
impact expected in the next 5 years if the proposal is approved and
if it is rejected)

5.2 Indicate Uncertainties

The uncertainty of the predictions should be clearly stated.
Impact analyses rely on past studies of other developments, assump-
tions about future change in the community, and often crude methods
for allocating impacts among types of development. These uncer-
tainties can at least be reflectdd by rounding off estimates, put-
ting numbers in a range from low to high, or stating the results
qualitatively. This may help prevent the analyst and the community
from blindly trusting results simply because they are shown to the
last decimal place.,

SAMPLE-IMPACT SUMMARIES

IMPACT OF FULL DEVELOPMENT*

Present Zoning Proposed Zon ng

Development type 100% single-family 40% to 50% Multi-
family
New school children 1,650 1,550
Traffic impacts bad worse
Tax rate reduction $5.20 $6.60
Social characteristics little change some change
South Natick visual
character substantial change less change
Air quality some change more change
Water consumption increase less increase
Storm water runoff increase less increase
Sanitary sewerage on lot neighborhood system

IMPACT OF MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON EASTERN POINT ROAD COMPARED
WITH:**

Type of Impact Multi-family elsewhere Single-family here

Schools Better Better
Sewerage Better Worse
Water Better Worse
Drainage Better Similar
Traffic WORSE Worse
Taxes Better Better
Visual Similar Worse
Ecology ? Worse
Housing Needs Worse Better
Social BETTER Similar

*Herr Associates, "Planning for South Natick", prepared for Natick
Homeowners Association and Martin Cerel, revised April 16, 1975.

**Large impacts shown in all capitals. Herr Associates, "Eastern
Point Road Development", for Gloucester Planning Board, April 11,
1973.

More fundamental ancertainties should also be stated. 'Findings
may be very sensitive to certain assumptions, such as those about:

the probability of development;

what form development will take; later changes in a prelim-
inary scheme might make impacts much better or worse;

the expected demand of new development, e.g., water use
number of school children, amount of traffic (general standards
may not fit the particular development for one reason or another);

the state's fiscal system, since changes-might reduce local
fiscal consequences of development.

Indicate wherb:anothe*, still reasonable assumption would give very
different results..

5.3 Suggest Actions to Improve Impacts

Such actions might include:

- ways for the developer to modify his plan;

- conditions for public approval of the proposal;

changes in municipal regulations (e.g., require Special
Permit for uses now allowed as of right);

new public improvements that would be needed to accommodate
the development.

Where an impact is still unclear and critical to the public
decision, a more thorough investigation may be recommended. Such
study goes beyond the general methods described in this guidebook,
and usually requires specialized professional assistance.

5.4 Highlight Key Choices

Overall findings can often be distilled into a few key choices.
and trade-offs. Look for the following.

a. On what issues would the proposal make a significant
difference? Other" issues'(sometimes the majority) can be safely
ignored.

b. Are all the proposal's significant impacts better (or
worse) than if the proposal were rejected? If so, the public
decision is easy.

C. Does the proposal have a very severe negative impact so
catastrophic it outweigh.� all-benefits? Is that impact correctable?
Again, the public decision may be clear.

d. Where the proposal has one major benefit and one major
drawback, simply ask if the benefit is worth the cost. For example,
is a.$2.00 redu6tion on the tax rate worth a 50% traffic increase
on, Main Street?

e. Are the overall effects on all groups in the community
positive (or negative)?

f. Can the proposal be changed so that it would become
clearly positive?

g. Finally, are there major uncertainties which might affect
the public decision? Would one make the same decision under each
assumption regarding the uncertainty?

STEP 6. USE FINDINGS IN PUBLIC DECISION

Many impact studies 8top here. By disclosing impacts and
highlighting key choices, the study provides a valuable aid for
officials and citizens who will weigh the costs and benefits, then
decide on the proposal.

It is possible for the study effort to go further, giving
weight to each of the impact outcomes, summing over them, then
making a final recommendation on the proposal. We are generally
wary, however, of reliance on expert conclusions or a quantitative
decision formula. Such methods are often tempting because they
suggest an "objective" solution. Yet balancing advantages and
disadvantages is a matter of judgment and values. Each person
will weighlimpacts differently, depending on how he is affected
by the proposal, his preferences, and the importance he attaches
to each issue. in our view, impact studies should help clarify
these judgments, not make them.

A valuable final step, however, might be to involve a broad
spectrum of residents in reviewing study findings. Citizen panels,,
for example, which earlier helped shape studies should review the
results. Panels might jointly make a recommendation on the pro-
posa.1, by consensus among the groups or by voting. More simply,
.open meetings can be held on preliminary findings.. Such partici-
patory approaches can provide useful input into the public decision.

.For those who find them useful and valid, quantitative decision
approaches are available. A few basic notions and references are
listed below. Be careful in using them since the results may seem
objective and authoritative, rather than simply a reflection of the
assumptions they are based on.

6.1 Quantitative Methods

Formal methods have been developed 'for comparing different
types of impacts in order to arrive at@a decision*.

a. Use a Common Measure for All Issues. One can measure all
impacts on a single scale, expressed in do!-lars** or positive/ .
negative "points". Impacts can then be summed, giving a positive
or negative overall result. This is the basic principle of cost-
benefit analysis***.

One might, fo r example-:

(1) Assign a weight to each issue, based on its relative im-
portance, with all the weights adding to 100. One might give
traffic congestion, say, a weight of 20, job opportunities 30, and
so. on.

(2) Rate the proposal's impact on each issue. A very good
impact might be +2, an insignificant impact 0, a very bad impact
-2.

(3) Multiply the rating times the weight for that issue
(e.g., very bad congestion = weight of 20 x rating of -2
-40 points).

(4) Add up all the results (from step 3).

(5) If the total is positive, or more positive than the alter-
native (estimated in the same way), and one believes the method and
particular numbers, then approve the proposal.

The problem, of course, is who assigns the weights. Each per-
son in the community has his own values; a job-seeker might give new
jobs a weight of 80, someone else a weight of 20.

b. Weiaht b@@Interest Group. A further refinement is to have
representatives of.each interest group in the community assign

'J *Douglas C. Dacy, Robert E. Keunne, and Martin C..McGuire, Approaches
to the Treatment of Incommensurables in Cost-Benefit Analysis,
Prepared for the National Science Foundation by the Institute for
Defense Analysis, Program Analysis Division, Arlington, Virginia,
1973.
**Be sure to include all non-monetary impacts.
***See, for example, Otto Eckstein, Water-Resources Development: The
Economics of Project Development, Harvard Univ. Press, 1958;
Harley Hinrichs and Graeme Taylor, eds., Program Budgeting and
Benefit-Cost Analysis, Goodyear, 1969; E.J. Mishan, Cost-Benefit
Analysis, Praeger, 1972.

weights and rate the proposal*. The process thus far may be in-
structive for participants and results may be enlightening for pub-
lic decision-makers,(also explosive when the decision eventually
goes against particular groups).

The final step is then to weight the views of each group and
,.sum across the groups. The obvious problem is 'how weights are
assigned to each group in the community: number of people, prox-
imity to the proposal, political power, political powerlessness?
We don't know of any easy or "correct" solutions.

STEP 7. ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSAL".

The community may wish to rezone a site after reviewing the
developer's preliminary scheme. How can they be confident that
'what gets built after rezoning is in fact what the community had
intended and desired? There are several approaches.

a. Careful Amendment. The zoning amendment or the rest of
the bylaw can be carefully modified to reflect findings of impact
studies. Thus, only a very narrow range of uses might be allowed
in a proposed commercial zone.

For example, the Town ofBourne determined that a proposed re-
search laboratory would have benefits outweighing detriments if
actually developed as proposed. The town therefore amended the
zoning bylaw to allow the foll
owing at that location, but no other
business uses:

"Marine Research - Industrial or commercial experimentation
and/or design and/or production of prototypes, exclusive of
volume or continuous production, which requires location ad-
jacent to the ocean.

Facilities for marine research are permitted on Special Per-
mit in the R-20 District, but only if conforming with the
following:

- Lot area of at least five acres, and of at least one acre
per employee.

- No research activity or parking shall be located within
sixty feet of any lot line of an adjacent owner.

- All structures J. research activity, and parking are to be
screened from adjacent premises by plantings or fences.

*See Julie Hetrick Schermes, "Interest Group Assessment in Trans-
portation Planning", Traffic Quarterly, January, 1975; J.K. Friend
and W.N. Jessop, Local@Government and Strategic Choice, London:
Tavistock Publications, 1969 (pages 177-193 provide a somewhat
different approach).

Any nighttime illumination shall not cause glare on adjacent
premises.

Frontage shall be on a way not less than forty feet wide."

Exactly such a use was developed, and as expected, was an
asset.

b. Require.Special Permit for Certain Uses. Where criteria
are difficult to specify in advance or on a general basis, it is
often appropriate to require Special Permit approval for the pro-
posed type of development. Special Permit procedures provide an
opportunity to review the final development plan and to attach
conditions, including the condition that the plan be complied with,
and possibly including bonds or covenants where appropriate.

c. Receive Property Interest in Part of the Land. In contro-
vers.ial situations, additional assurances about details of the
development may be desirable at the time when City Council or
Town Meeting votes on the rezoning. The developer may be willing
to make such assurances and to guarantee them by giving the com-
munity someproperty interest in the land before the community
votes on rezoning.

The Sylvania Corporation and Newton, for example, worked out
an understanding on details of future industrial development on
Sylvania's property. Sylvania then sold Newton an option to pur-
chase some of its land. One condition of the sale, enforceable
by the City, was that Sylvania would refrain from using the land
in question for many uses which would have been allowed should the
land be rezoned. Newton then rezoned the land, an action upheld
by the courts*.

Be careful. Such arrangements require expert legal assistance.
To be effective and legal:

- the community must receive a property interest in the
land**; and

- the arrangement must be officially separate from the rezoning;
it may influence but not bind the subsequent vote on rezoning.

Following is the impact summary for Drum Hill rezoning in
Chelmsford. It may help illustrate the process of analysis out-
lined in this chapter.

,*Sylvania v. City of Newton, 344 Mass. 428 (1962).
**Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs, Public Law Memo,
No. 46, September 13, 1972.

CHAPTER 1A

IMPACT SUMMARY: DRUM HILL REZONING

We have been asked to review the impacts of commercial rezoning
near Drum Hill rotary in Chelmsford. Chelmsford's recent Comprehen-
sive Plan recommended rezoning about 60 acres at the Drum Hill Rotary
from limited industrial (IA) to shopping district (CC) in order to
allow construction of a regional shopping center*. The site is north-
east of the rotary, lies behind existing stores on Drum Hill Road,
and extends to the,Lowell border and the former Middlesex Training
School (Figure 1). The land was once used as a gravel pit but is
now vacant.

Since rezoning was first discussed, a developer has in fact
purchased options on the property and has proposed a regional shop-
ing center to serve the whole Lowell area**. The proposed center
would be about the size of the Burlington Mall. If built, it would
be the largest single commercial development in the history of the
town and one of the largest in the state. The evident developer
interest and the potential scale of development suggest that the
town carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of rezoning.

We have tried to clarify the consequences of rezoning. We have
not made an overall recommendation for or against the proposal.
That is a local judgment.

POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Possible development consequences of either approving or re-
jecting rezoning are shown in Table 1A-1 and described below.

1. If You Approve Rezoning

We have used the developer's scheme to illustrate potential
impacts of rezoning, since it is about. the most extensive develop-
ment realistically imaginable on the site. When complete, such a
shopping center could include 4 department stores, about 1.3 million
square feet of floor area, and 6,500 parking spaces. Note, however,
that:

a. Such development is far from certain. Rezoning could re-
sult in a smaller amount of development or even in none, if sales
potential, economic conditions, department store interest, or other
government approvals do not work out. Chelmsford zoning is only one
hurdle. As currently planned, the center requires Lowell rezoning
on adjacent property and State D.P.W. approval of a curb cut on

*William Melia, "Comprehensive Plan, Phase One", June, 1975.
**General Growth Development, "Importance of the Mall to the Com-
munity", 1975.

FIGURE :PROPOSED ZONING AND PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER.

cq,
..... ........

.. ......

........... ..... ..

.... ...........
..........
............
............
evIT15
........ ......
...... . ....
........ .
.................. .
............

............
. ........
..............
...........
............

... ................

.. .......

eu(z9etJ-r T-A zDor--

mww-4 wT -ro e:@44Lr-,
11 - 170,@4 +A ,-)jVj70
valon -r- -

Table 1A-1
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Current Zoning ____Pro_posed Zoning

Area involved 63+ acres 63+ acres

District IA cc

Possible type of development industrial park regional shop-
ping center
Possible gross floor area if 000_.s.f.a b
site developed 5501, 1,260,000 S'.f.

Probability of full development
within 5 years 15% 50%

a
bAssumes floor.area equals 207c of land area.
Based on Derwood Quade, site plan for "The Mall"; includes malls
and corridors, excludes buildings not affected by rezoning (now
in commercial district or in Lowell)

See Appendix

North Road. A reasonable judgment is that the center has about a
50% chance of being built within 5 years if given rezoning.

b. If a regional center is not built, the site may well re-
main vacant. Lack of visibi'lity and rugged topography may deter
small-scale development.

c. The center might be built very differently than shown on
the developer's preliminary plan. For example, more buildings
could be shifted into Lowell, substantially reducing Chelmsford's
tax benefits.

2. If You Reject Rezoning

The town can keep the current zoning, with the following
development consequences:

a. A large industrial park might be built on the site.
Chances seem slight, however, perhaps 15% in the next 5 years,
given recent industrial demand in the town and other available
sites. Of course, one day some other proposal. not now anticipated
might be made for the site.

b. Denied at this location, commercial development will
probably occur elsewhere in the region. A regional center might be
built in Lowell or Tyngsborough or further away. Impacts on Chelms-
ford would be altered but still important.

FISCAL

A regional shopping center would pay substantially more in
local,taxes than it costs in local services. We estimate that such
a center could reduce Chelmsford's tax rate by about $1.00 (Table
IA-2). This is a significant benefit although much less than the
$3.00 reduction mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Our estimate
is lower than that in the Plan because we have (a) estimated some-
what lower assessments*, (b) deducted for town costs (e.g., for
police and fire services), and (c) considered effects of reduced
state aid which would result from increased local assessed valua-
tion. State aid formulas may change, but probably not enough to
wipe out the tax benefits of the shopping center.

An industrial park would be considerably smaller., costing less
to service but also paying less in taxes. We estimate that it
might reduce the tax rate by $0.30-$0.40, about 1/3 as much as the
shopping center.

When the uncertainties of development are considered, "ex-
pected" tax benefits are much lower: perhaps $0.50 for the pro-
posed zoning, $0..05 for current zoning.

*$15 milli0n, smaller than the $20 million mentioned in the Compre-
hensive Plan but larger than the $13 million estimated by the
developer ("Importance of the Mall to the Community").

Table 1A-2
TAX RATE CHANGE

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Annual Costs & Revenues if
Full Development

Revenues $183,000 $629,000

- School Costs 0 0

- Non@School Costsa 221000-559000 741000-1741000

- Stateoschool aid loss 572006 192)000

- Street improvements
(average year debt
service) 0 15,000

Total annual fiscal gain 71,000-104,000 247,000-347,000

Possible Reduction in Tax Rate $0.29-0.39 $0.88-1.23

Probability of Full Development
within 5 years 15% 50%

"Expected Value" of reduction
in tax rate (rounded off) $0.05 $0.45-0.60

arange, reflecting possible costs for fire, police, highways, etc.

TRAFFIC

To be success ful, a regional shopping center would involve an
enormous amount of traffic. We estimate that 50,000 trips would
begin or end at the center each day. (For comparison, North Road
now carries about 12,000 trips a day). As a result, traffic might
double on Drum Hill rotary, Drum Hill Road, Westford Stre.et.(in
Lowell) and North Road (from the site to 1-495). The result would
be severe congestion (especially evenings and Saturdays) unless and
until these streets and the rotary are improved to increase capacity.
Simple incremental improvements seem feasible except At Drum Hill
rotary. We don't know of any simple solutions if, as it appears,
the rotary cannot handle the extra traffic without many hours of
congestion. Total redesign, reconstruction, and enlargement might
be needed, possibly in conjunction with a new route 213. This
raises serious concerns about the feasibility, timing, and desir-
ability of a regional shopping center at this location.

Other concerns include:

a. the exact location of shopping center driveways, to pro-
vide adequate separation from other driveways and intersections;

b. traffic increases at hazardous locations elsewhere in
town (e.g., North Road at Dalton Road);

C. Added traffic noise, pollution, danger in residential
neighborhoods (e.g., along North, Old Westford, and Graniteville
Roads).

An industrial park would only add about 5,000 trips a day,
1/10 as many as the shopping center. It would therefore have much
smaller impacts in all these respects.

ECONOMIC

We estimate that a regional shopping center might provide 2,200
permanent jobs (close to the developer's estimate of 2,400). This
would be about twice as many jobs as an industrial park on this
site (Table IA-3). 'Many shopping center positions are relatively
low-paying (average annual wage is less than $6,000) but they do pro-
vide opportunities for Chelmsford housewives, teenagers, and workers
seeking second jobs. The center would significantly increase job
opportunities within the town itself, reducing,net out-commuting.

Commercial.development is much more likely than industrial
development on the site. Expected job benefits (even, surprisingly,
blue-collar jobs) are therefore much greater under commercial zoning.

The center, fully developed, appears lik6ly to "capture" about
1/7 of the sales in existing Chelmsford stores. Competition will
be most severe for variety, discount, clothing and furniture stores.
Unless there is substantial population and income growth, some va-
cancies will be created somewhere. On the other hand:

Table IA-3
EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS

Probable jobs created under,
Current Proposed
Impact Timing Zoning_ Zoning

Construction jobs in Expected in 5 yrs 10 140
peak yeara Full development 70 270

Permanent jobs Expected in 5 yrs. 150 1,100
Full development 1,000 21200

Craftsmen, operatives Expected in 5 yrs. 90 180
jobs Full development 590 350

Total Payroll Expected in 5 yrs. $ ly5301_';000 $ 6,050,000
Full development 101200,000 12,100,000

Increase in emplo ent Expected in 5 yrs. 3% 23%
W Vn
within Chelmsford Full development 21% 45%

aMan-years on-site labor
bPermanent jobs compared to 1974 covered employment.

a. Competition might occur to some extent anyway (e.g., if re-
zoning is rejected and the center is built in a nearby community).

b. The center will bring out-of-town shoppers to the Drum Hill
area, inducing sales at nearby stores which exist now or might be
built in the future.

C. The centerts small shops may provide opportunities for
local entrepreneurs.

The center may also increase values of nearby commercial pro-
perties while reducing values of residential properties, especially
those along traffic-impacted routes.

PUBLIC FACILITIES

Development at Drum Hill isn't likely to require very extensive
public improvements other than for traffic, as discussed earlier.
Larger water mains may be needed in the area for either a shopping
center or an'industrial park. We don't know of any other pressing
issues, although some types of industrial development might pose
particular problems (e.g., very heavy water demand).

SOCIAL IMPACTS

Social impacts of Drum Hill rezoning are not likely to be
critical. A regional shopping center would, of course, broaden
residents' shopping opportunities and might affect people's image
of the community (Burlington Mall is a dramatic example). It will
also provide a meeting place and hang-out for many, notably young
people. We don4t think the center will bring new residents to
Chelmsford or havemajor visual effects on the Drum Hill area.

Some of the employees of an industrial park might move to
Chelmsford, but this effect would probably be minor.

REGIONAL IMPACTS

It may be worthwhile to briefly consider regional impacts,
although they have not been the focus of this analysis. The pro-
posed shopping center would be seriously competitive with the
struggling commercial renaissance of Downtown Lowell. There are a
number of ways that Chelmsford residents can.think about that.

a. Chelmsford residents have a stake in the future of Downtown
Lowell. Many have jobs, investments, or businesses there, and even
more are served or could be served by the rich mixture of activities
planned there. Hurting Downtown Lowell hurts Chelmsford residents
as well as the City of Lowell.

b Failure to reflect regional concerns in local decisions
could have a backlash. The City of Lowell, NMAC, and various state
agencies might well hesitate to help a community which acted in
selfish disregard for the interests of the broader region.

c. There is an ethical responsibility to the region, even if
the first two points aren't applicable.

d. On the other hand, one might conclude that the proposed
Drum Hill center isn't really contrary to the best interests of the
region; that the region is better served by allowing.the center than
by the suburban scatteration of smaller-scale commerce which might
result, Lowell's plans notwithstanding, if the center were refused
here.

In some states.and in one county in this state, decisions on
developments of this scale are made by a regional body, not local
ones. Responsible local behavior will make such loss of home rule
less imminent. Before a local decision is made, the NMAC should,
as a minimum., be consulted.

SUMMARY

Table 1A-4 summarizes key potential consequences of rezoning.
Taxes and jobs are the most persuasive reasofis for rezoning. Prob-
lems resulting from traffic are the major drawbacks. In considering
.these issues, two judgments should be made:

- should a shopping center be allowed at that site?

- if the answer is yes, what, if any, safeguards should be
provided?

Following are some important considerations in making these judg-
ments.

.1. Deciding Whether to Rezone

a. Traffic problems should be weighed against job and tax
benefits.

b. Don't turn down the proposal if you think that the shopping
center might then be built over the town line in Lowell. Such a
center would have the same traffic problems but would not pay taxes
to Chelmsford.

I C. Before rezoning the area, the town should obtain a profes-
sional traffic analysis of the shopping center's effect on the
rotary, which is the most.difficult traffic issue. Analysis might
be provided by the D.P.W., the developer, or a private traffic en-
gineer hired by the town. The findings of this analysis should-be
reviewed with the state D.P.W. Key questions are how the D.P.W.
might respond to the curb cut application and how they might deal
with the rotary. Review may give a better sense of whether and
when a shopping center could happen.

29 -

Table IA-4
CONSEQUENCES OF REZONING

Impact Evaluation Description

Major Consequences

Tax.Rate Good Reduce tax rate by as much as $1.00 (2% reduction;.
if one's house is assessed at $30,000, save $30
.a year)

Job Opportunities Good increase jobs within Chelmsford by up to 45%;
make jobs more accessible to residents. However,
some jobs would be available to residents wherever
center is built.

Traffic Bad Severe congestion in Drum Hill area; may require
rebuilding of Drum Hill rotary. Increases noise,
pollution, and dangers along North Rd., Granite-
ville Rd., Old Westford Rd.

Other Consequences

Competition Bad May capture 1/7 of current Chelmsford sales.
However, some competition would still occur
wherever center is built.

Shopping Opportunities Good Increase range of stores easily accessible to
residents.

2. Deciding on Safeguards

As originally drafted, the proposed zoning amendment would
allow a shopping center outright in the new CC zone. The Planning
Board would review the final site plan, but its review would only
be advisory (Proposed Zoning Bylaw, April, 1975, Section V and

We think that additional safeguards are appropriate when deal-
ing with such a large potential development. If the site is to be
rezoned, rezoning might reasonably be combined with the following
additional actions..

a. Require Special Permit for Shopping Centers. Such major
developments should be allowed only on Special Permit. Special
Permit procedure would provide public review of the specific devel-
opment proposal. One could then note the exact number and placement
of driveways (a traffic safety concern) and location of buildings
(a fiscal issue if some of the buildings are located across the
town line in Lowell). A public hearing would be provided. The town
would be able to impose conditions on the development.

Such Special Permits might be assigned to the Planning Board
(now allowed under state law). The Planning Board could also pro-
vide either advisory or binding site plan review, whether or not
designated as the special permit granting agency.

.b. Revise Special Permit Criteria and Submission Requirements.
For example, Special Permit criteria already deal with traffic im-
pacts, including "congestion, hazard, or substantial change in
established neighborhood character,." (Sec. 11.1.2, Chelmsford
Zoning Bylaw). It is possible to make these criteria more precise
and to require the developer to submit a professional traffic
analysis demonstrating compliance (see "Traffic Impacts").

c. Adopt Curb Cut Bylaw. The town might consider a bylaw
controlling curb cuts on town roads, roughly similar to D.P.W. con-
trol over state roads. Criteria might include safe egress, clearly
defined (not continuous) driveways, distance from other driveways,
and the developer's agreement to share in street improvements needed
to make the egress safe.

*NOTE: Bylaw amendments must now conform to the new state zoning
law, Chapter 808 of the Acts of 1975. The 1975 proposed bylaw
must therefore be mod.ified in at least some respects before it
can be adopted.

A P P E N D I X B A S I S 0 F A N A L Y S I S

Development.consequences of current and proposed zoning were
estimated as follows.

CURRENT ZONING

Full Developmen

Current zoning allows industrial development on the site.
What scale development seems realistic? We have assumed that an
industrial park might be built, with floor area of buildings total-
ling 20% of land area or 550,000 sq. ft. This is below the maximum
density permitted in the IA zone (30% floor area ratio), but is
higher than the actual density of most recent factories and ware-
houses in Chelmsford. For example, the Curry plant has a floor
area ratio of 13%, the Pellon plant 19%*.^

Probability of Full Industrial Development

Full industrial development of the site does not seem very
likely within the next few years, based on the following.

a. Industrial growth in the whole town only averages about
15 acres a year**. If all Chelmsford's industrial growth took place
on this site, it would still take 4 or 5 years at that rate to
develop the 63 acres

b. The site is only one of many vacant, industrially zoned
areas in the town.

C. Other areas may be more attractive for industry. For
example, industrial development has recently been attracted to the
Billerica Road area, where there are still several hundred acres
available.

d. The site is therefore likely to attract only a fraction of
future industrial growth in the community.

We have therefore assumed a low probability of,development,
15% by the end of five years.

*Based on data from the assessors' office.
**Comprehensive Plan shows industry occupied 78 acres in 1962, 246
in 1973. Growth was therefore about 168 acres in 11 years, or
about 15 acres a year.

PROPOSED ZONING

Full Development

General Growth Properties has proposed a regional shopping
center for the site, to be built in two stages*. We have used their
"ultimate" center to illustrate possible impacts on the site given
rezoning.

Based on the developer's preliminary site plan,.rezoning might
lead to development of 1,260,000 s.f. floor area. This was estimated
as follows:

1,175,000 sq. ft. gross leasable area of ultimate center
+ 141,200 sq. ft. non-leasable area (malls, etc.)
1)316)200 sq. ft. total floor area
55YO00 sq. ft. not affected by rezoning (now in commercial
district., or in Lowell)
12261,200 sq. ft. total floor area affected by rezoning
say 1,260,000 sq. ft.

Probability of Full Commercial Development

A regional shopping center is an enormously complex undertaking.
Lots of things can go wrong. The center may never be built, des-
pite the best intentions on the part of the developer. Some major
uncertainties:

a.. Sales.potential. Can this area support a million sq. ft.,
center? The developer thinks so. We'll assume he's correct, al-
though we're somewhat skeptical**.

b. Economic conditicns. Like many major proposals, this
one is based on optimistic assumptions about personal income and the
economy. The center may not get built if the recession continues
or gets worse.

C. Prime te nants. Development depends on commitments by
several major department stores. We don't know of any such commit-
ments so far. If one or more retailers were already involved (as.
tenant or partner) everyone could be much surer about the center
getting built.

d. Government approvals. Chelmsford zoning is only one hur-
dle. The biggest problem may be in Lowell. As we understand itY

*"Importance of the Mall to the Community".
**Population growth is a key element in the developer's preliminary
market projections. However, the State Census indicates that the
Lowell metropolitan area has been growing slower since 1970 (less
than 1% per year) than they, and perhaps others, would have pro-
jected using growth data from the sixties.

rezoning may be needed to locate one egress and part of the parking
there*. Lowell approval isn't a sure thing, since Lowell is likely
to get lots of traffic, little taxes, and much lower sales downtown.
There may also be some problems obtaining State Department of Public
Works approval for a curb cut on North Road. New state policy may
discourage major shopping center development, e.g., by requiring the
developer to pay for all needed.improvements on the abutting state
highways.

In light of these uncertainties, we assume a 50% chance of
development in the next 5 years or so. If anything, this is
optimistic**.

*The site plan might be redesigned but either (a) more frontage
would be needed on Drum Hill Road for another egress or (b) traffic
impacts would be even worse.
**Note: If major development doesn't happen, the site may not be
developed at all. The distance from the road and rugged topo-
graphy make small-scale development unlikely.

CHAPTER 2

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

Traffic analysis can be conducted at several levels of detail.
La.y officials and citizens can make rough estimates of the traffic
impacts of a proposal, or professional traffic engineers can be
asked to provide a more thorough, elaborate and precise analysis.

This chapter outlines a set of quick methods and background
information for non-professionals. These may be useful for deter-
mining possible impacts, for deciding whether a professional analysis
is needed, and for reviewing a professional analysis.

In addition, at the end we've suggested how a community might
require developers to submit professional traffic analyses as part
of Special Permit applications. In this way the community could
shift the burden of-analysis to those proposing major traffic
generators.

Whether traffic analyses are conducted by laymen or profes-
sionals, they should generally focus on the following questions:

a. To what extent will traffic hazards increase on nearby
streets? This is often the most urgent and serious concern about
new development.

b. To what extent will there be congestion on nearby streets?

c. How will added traffic affect the quality of life on nearby
streets, whether or not there are major safety.or congestion
problems?

In addition, the analysis should identify possible actions by
the developer or the community that would make the above impacts
less serious. This might suggest conditions for approving the pro-
posal (e.g., shift the entrance, reduce the size of the development)
and indicate the extent of related public street improvements.

1. AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC

In order to analyze the traffic impact of a proposal, one has
to estimate how much it will increase vehicle trips. This involves
the following steps.

1.1 Estimate Traffic From Proposed Development

The first step is to estimate the total amount of traffic that
will be "generated" by the proposed development. This is usually
measured as the total number of,vehicle trips which begin or end
on the site on an average day*. Estimates can be based on studies
of existing developments throughout the country; some results are
summarized in Table-2-1.

The following should be kept in mind when using these or other
numbers:

a. These numbers are only rough guides. Studies show a wide,
and often unexplained, range of results, suggesting caution and
skepticism in applying general findings to a particular proposal.
In fact, each professional analyst who looks at a proposal will
probably come up with a somewhat different traffic estimate, based
on his judgment and experience. Where the estimate is far outside
the common range in Table 2-1, however, one should ask how the number
was estimated.

b. Make sure estimates are comparable. Some studies measure
person-trips (not vehicle trips), peak hour trips (not daily trips),
or round trips (not trips each way). One study may show trips per
acre of industry, another per employee, and still another per 1,000
square feet of gross floor area.

C. These numbers assume almost all trips are by automobile.
If transit and walking would account, s-ay, for half the trips at a
new development, simply reduce the Table 2-1 estimate by half.

1.2 Distribute Proposal Traffic on Nearby Streets

Traffic can't.be distributed with any great precision. It is
usually easiest totake the site plan and a street map of the sur-
rounding area and.think about where people are likely to be travel-
ling (where residents go to work, where the developer's market study
expects shoppers to come from, where there are major expressways)
Likely routes and number of trips can be plotted on the map up to a
certain distance, say i mile. Not all routes need be thought out to
2
the same distance; those with few trips don't need further considera-
tion. Figure.2 shows how trips from a proposed development might be
distributed.

*These are one-way trips. Each arrival is one trip; each departure
is one trip.

Table 2-1
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BY LAND USE
Trips Average Daily Traffic (Vehicle-Trips Per Day)
LAND USE Per: Average Common Range

Residential
Single-family Dwelling Unit 8.5 6 .14a, b
Multi-family 6.5 3 9c
Mobile homes 6 4 9

Commercial
Shopping centers
regional (500,000+ gsf) 12000 gsf 40 30
community (100,000- b
500,000 gsf) 80 50- - 110b
neighborhood (-100,000 gsf) 100 60 - 130
Supermarket 130 100 150
Discount store 40 30, 55
Drive-in bank each 1,500 1,000 -2,000
Gas station each 400 300- - 700
Other stores 1,000 gsf 50 20 - 120
Fast food restaurant 600 400 -,.800
Other restaurants 150 50 - 300
Hotels, motels with con-
vention@room facilities room 9.2 8.5- 11
Other motels room 5.6 4 - 7

Inditstrial
Manufacturing d 2 2e 1.9- 2.7
over 500,000 gsf employee
less than 500,000 gsf it 2:9f 2.5- 3.3
Research and development it 2.49 2.0- 2.6
Industrial park it 3.7h 2.4- 4.5
Warehouse it 4.5i 3 - 10
Truck terminal 1,000 gsf 12 10 - 15

Table 2-1 (cont.)

Trips Average Daily Traffic (Vehicle Trips Per Day)
LAND USE- Per Average Common Range

Office
General office 1,000 gsf 9 - 17
Medical office 53 50 - 80

Institutional
University hospital bed 37 20 - 45,
General hospital 14 8 22
Long-term care hospital 3.5k 3 - 5
College student 2.4 1 - 3
Airportl acre 3.6 2 - 6

Recreation
Stadium. spectator 1 0.8- 1.3
Drive-in theater parking space 2 1 - 2
Golf course acre 6 2 - 10
00 Marina boat berth 4 2 - 10

gsf = gross square feet building floor area
aWithin range, higher if homes expensive, in outlying areas, and/or with young families
and children
bNew England or East Coast estimates are used, since they are quite different from
national averages
cWithin range, higher if large units (2, 3, and 4 bedrooms) and/or in outlying areas;
very low if elderly residents
d1ndustrial uses can also be estimated per 1,000 gross sq. ft. or per acre, but these
are less reliable
eaverage = 4.2 per 1,000 gsf, 32 per acre
faverage = 4.9 per 1,000 gsf, 22 per acre
gaverage = 5.1 per 1,000 gsf, 73 per acre
haverage = 9.3 per 1,000 gsf, 76 per acre
iaverage = 5.5 per 1,000 gsf, 73 per acre
JGovernment offices are higher, perhaps twice as high
kLower for junior colleges and for residential colleges
lFor small private planes
n'Assumes full attendance

Table 2-1 (cont.)

Sources: Herr Associates estimates based on:
Dennis L. Hansen, Volume XV7-Travel Generation, National Association of County
Engineers Action Guide Series, National Association of Counties Research
Foundation, 1972.

Trip Generation by Land Use Part I, A Summary of Studies Conducted, Maricopa
Association of Governments, Arizona, 1974.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Committee 5N-S, "Guidelines for Driveway
Design and Location", Traffic Engineering, February, 1973. .

Herr Associates, "Performance Zoning IVI, for Franklin Coun.ty Planning Depart-
ment and D.C.A., June, 1972.

We suggest first distributing trips on each street as a per-
centage of the total (e.g., 20% on North St., 30% on South St.,
etc.). This assures that 'trips will add up to the total number
from the proposal*.

1.3 Identify Critical Locations

Usually, only a few intersections, and stretches of road need
further study. These should be quickly identified:

a. Where traf fic will increase substantially, say, by more
than 25% above current levels. Proposal traffic should be compared
with current traffic on each street, either from an available
traffic count** or a rough guess at traffic on that type of street.
Table 2-2 suggests the range of traffic for different kinds of
streets.

b. Where traffic problems already exist. Even a slight
traffic increase can be serious where frequent backups or accidents
already occur. Local police keep accident records and sometimes
have a map of accident locations.

1.4 Estimate Non-Proposal Traffic

Estimate traffic expected anyway at critical locations. Two
steps are involved:

a. Determine present traffic. The local DPW, Highway Depart-
ment, or Police Department may have traffic count data. Many towns
have recent data collected for the TOPICS program of highway im-
provements. You can conduct a traffic count if no recent count is
available***, or just guess. Use of Table 2-2 should enable a guess
that will at least be "in the ballpark".

*Note: Steps 1.1 and 1.2 may exaggerate how many new trips there
will be on each street. It is assumed that all proposal traffic
is a net addition to nearby streets. In fact, some of the cars
stopping at a gas station or store would have been on the street
anyway. We don't know a good way to estimate (and subtract out)
such traffic. Assuming all trips are new is.probably quite accurate
for residences and industries; it is probably least accurate for
_small,--stores on major roads. While assuming all trips are new
nmay slightly over-estimate congestion problems, it does indicate
safety hazards (e.g., heavy traffic to and from a driveway).
**From the local department of public works, a recent T.O.P.I.C.S.
program in the community, or the Mass. Department of Public Works
(which periodically publishes "Traffic Volumes", mainly dealing
with state roads).
***A 24-hour counter may be used. On residential streets, simply
count traffic during the evening rush hour (usually about 4:30-
5:30 P.M.) and multiply by 10 to get a rough estimate of daily
traffic. Incidentally, an evening rush hour count is also useful
for evaluating congestion (page 45).

40 -

Figure 2: SAMPLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

!&-PAL: &V
FPZ DAY
6F.4 CAM

...........
............ .

Table 2-2
COMMON TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Type of Road Average Daily Traffic

Community Streets
Lane or dead-end street 75- 350
Local street serving abutting property 100- 1,000
Collector street serving local streets 800- 3,000
Arterial street distributing traffic through-
out communities of 5,000+ population (often
the main shopping street)
minor (connects neighborhoods or entire
small communities) 3,000- 71000
major 7,000-30,000a

State and Federal Highways
Secondary highways, relatively short, connect"
ing centers of up to 15,000 population each
(e.g., routes 6A, 32, 63, 119) 1,000- 8,000
Primary Highways (e.g., US 20, US 5, US 44,
Rte. 9, Rte. 140) 5,000-35,00&
Limited Access Highways (e.g., 1-91, 1-93,
Rte. 3, Rte. 128) 20,000-120,000

aHigher part of range usually occurs in large metropolitan areas

Sources: Massachusetts Department of Public Works, "A Statewide
Highway Transportation Plan", 1968
Massachusetts Department of Public Works, 111974 Traffic
Volumes"
Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers
and National Association of Home Builders, "Residential
Streets: Objectives, Principles, and Design Considera-
tions", 1974.

b. Add traffic expected from other nearby development (if any).
Other new development may be built along the road in the next few
years. Its potential traffic should be estimated (Steps 1.1 and
1.2), in order to get a realistic picture of long-term traffic on
the road*.

1.5 Estimate Percenta_geIncrease in Traffic

Compare proposal traffic with traffic expected anyway at
critical locations:
% Increase in traffi c Proposal Traffic
x 100
Non-Proposal Traf f ic

1.6 Evaluate Impacts

Traffic increases at critical locations should be evaluated
in terms of safety, congestion and quality of life. In evaluating
a proposal, one should compare it with what (if any) development
,seems likely on the site if the proposal is rejected. To do this,

a. imagine a realistic alternative development;

b. estimate its traffic impacts in the same way that the
proposal was evaluated;

C. consider how likely development actually is if the proposal
is approved and if it is rejected. For example, a community may
consider industrial zoning simply to prevent development in one
part of town. Traffic impacts of possible industrial parks may not
have to be taken very seriously. But if residential development
were likely under present zoning, its potential traffic impacts
should be given much more importance.

*It may be hard to predict whether (and when) large vacant areas
.near the proposal will be developed. The traffic estimate should
be adjusted to reflect the fact that development may not occur for
many years. One can do this by (1) estimating potential traffic
from the area (if fully developed) and (2) multiplying this by
the probability of development occurring within a certain number
of years (say 5 or 10). For example, say there are 500 acres of
vacant land near the proposal. There seems about a 407o chance that
the land will be developed with single-family homes within the next
5 years. Expected traffic can be estimated as follows:

500 acres of vacant land
x 2 of dwelling units per acre (current zoning)
IPOOO possible # of dwelling units
x 8.5 trips per dwelling unit (Table 2-1)
81500 possible total trips from vacant site
x .50 proportion using North Street
1,250 possible,trips using North Street
x .40 probability of full development within 5 years
1,700 expected trips from now-vacant land near proposal

2. SAFETY

Increased traffic greatly increases the danger of accidents,
even if the road isn't especially hazardous. It becomes much more
likely that cars (and pedestrians) will conflict with each other.
This may cause accidents and fcrce drivers and pedestrians to change
the way they use the street: children stop playing in the street,
pedestrians cross only at corners, drivers slow down; stop signs,
traffic signals and street lights may be installed.

Dangers are much greater if there are any hazardous road con-
ditions. Following are some features to watch out for.

2.1 Adequacy of Existing Roads

Where traffic will increase substantially, watch out for the
condition and layout of the existing road. The road may be quite
safe for current volumes but too narrow, winding, hilly or poorly
paved to safely handle traffic from the proposed development. Few
streets, for example, have alignments which can handle a 30% traffic
increase without becoming hazardous. The following sources may
suggest whether the road is adequate for the extra traffic.

a. past accidentrecords, from local police;

b. review by the highway surveyor or superintendent, and
local police;

c. where a state road is involved, review by the area office
of the State Department of Public Works;

d. road design standards in local subdivision regulations.

Various rules of thumb have sometimes been suggested*, but
what is considered adequate varies widely from one community to
another. Bellingham, for example, requires that subdivision streets
serving 50+ homes must have 36 ft. wide pavements. The same type of
street under some circumstances in Oak Bluffs is only required to be
14 feet wide.

2.2 Entrances and Exits

Even if a proposal,only increases street traffic slightly, one
should pay attention.to the location and design of entrances and
exits. Egresses often create hazards, some of which can be easily
modified by changing the site plan. Key factors to look out for
include-

*See: Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers
and National Association of Home Builders, "Residential Streets:
Objectives, Principles,.and Design Considerations", 1974;
Kevin Lynch, Site Planning, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1971.

a. Distance from other driveways and intersections. Where
these are very close, turning movements conflict and drivers weave
from one lane to another. 'Problems may occur where the driveway is
less than:

- 250 feet from an intersecting street
- 250 feet from the driveway of a major traffic generator
across the street*
- 500 feet from the driveway of a major traffic generator
on the same side'of the street.

b. Number of egresses. Designs which avoid continuous or
.frequent driveways are likely to be safer than those with such
driveways.

C. Sight Distances. How far can the driver see to the right
and left before he turns onto the street? Table 2-3 shows sight
distances suggested by the National Association of County
Engineers**.

Table 2-3
SUGGESTED SIGHT DISTANCES FROM DRIVEWAY

To Left To Right
2-lane- T or 6-lane
Speed on Street street street

30 mph 350 ft. 220 ft. 260 ft.
40 530 380 440
50 740 620 700
60 950 950 1,050

Source: Hansen., Travel Generation

This suggests that egresses should not be near hillcrests,
around curves, or near embankments. Less permanent features, such
as trees, shrubs, fences and parked vehicles can also block the
driver's vision. In some cases it may be appropriate for the
developer to grant a sight easement to the community, assuring that
underbrush will be kept cleared or that a fence will be removed.

d. Left Turn Movements. Heavy left turn movements to or
from the driveway can be especially dangerous.

*Unless the other driveway is exactly opposite, simply creating a
4-way intersection.
**Sight distances are measured 10 ft. back from the curb; the driver's
eye is assumed to be 3.5 feet above the ground, objects are assumed
to be 4.5 feet above the ground. Distances should be increased by
10% for rural areas and greatly increased f-or trucks.

e. Pedestrian Flow. The driveway may cross (and conflict with)
heavy pedestrian traffic alon g the street.

3. CONGESTION

Proposal traffic can create (or worsen) traffic jams on nearby
streets. Traffic engineers have complex methods for estimating con-
gestion, but a simpler approach can also suggest how jammed streets
will be.

Congestion depends on the amount of traffic and the "capacity"
of the road or intersection. If traffic volumes are large compared
to capacity, major delays may occur. One can predict how the pro-
posal will increase peak.hour traffic, and then estimate the extent
of service deterioration resulting from that. The following steps
are involved.

3.1 Select Location(s) to be Analyzed

Identify places where congestion is likely to be worst, gen-
erally where traffic will increase most substantially or where back-
ups already occur (Step 1.3, page 40). If traffic will increase
all along a road, congestion will usually be worst at major inter-
sections (where traffic movement s cross) or at obstructions '(e.g.,
where the.road is narrowest)..

3.2 Select Hours to be Analyzed

Decide when congestion is likely to be worst, that is, the
peak hour each day. Tables 2-4 and 2-5 can help select the appro-
priatehour to beanalyzed. The peak hour is usually the evening
rush hour (about 4:30-5:30 P.M.) but may be earlier or later if the
proposal represents a large share of traffic and has its highest
traffic at another hour (Table 2-5).

If traffic is much greater during a certain part of the year
(e.g., at a ski area, summer.resort, college town), the high-season
peak hour is critical and should be analyzed.

3.3 Estimate Current Peak Hour Traffic

Sources and methods are basically the same as for estimating
daily traffic (Step 1.4a, page 40). 'Several approaches are possible:

- use an available peak hour traffic count;

- count traffic during the peak hour; or

- guess, estimating what share of daily traffic occurs during
the peak hour (Table 2-4,; on most streets, evening rush hour
traffic is about 10% of daily traffic).

Table 2-4
EVENING RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC

Approximate % of Approximate
Type of Land Use Average Daily Traffic % Outbound

Residential 10 35
Commercial 10 50
Colleges, hospitals 10 65
Industrial is . . -.''. 80
Office 22 80

Source: Herr Associates estimates based on sources in Table 2-1.

Table 2-5
UNUSUAL PEAK TRAFFIC TIMING

Approximate
% of
Highes,t Average. -Da i ly Approximate
Land Use Hour Traffic % Outbound

Stadium, drive-in end of
theater last
show 45 almost 100

Regional shopping center 7-8 PM 10-15 45

Major college or hospital usually
morning
rush
hour 10-15 15

Industrial plant Depends
on shift
schedule:

beginning
of shift 15-35 20
end of
shift 15-35 80

Source: Herr Associ.ates estimates based on sources.in Table 2-1
and Louis Keefer a,nd David Witheford, Urban Travel
Patterns for'A'irports_, Shopping Centers and Industrial
Plants, Highway Research Board, 1966.

NOTE: if the street has more than I travel lane in each
direction, it would be best to estimate traffic and go through the
following steps for each direction on the street.

.3.4 Estimate Non_-Pr_oposal Future Peak Hour Traffic

How much traffic is expected at the location if the proposal
isn't built?

a. Determine daily traffic from future nearby development
(Step 1.4b, page 42).

b. Estimate what share of that traffic will occur during
the peak hour (Tables 2-4, 2-5).

c. Add this to current peak hour traffic.

3.5 Estimate Future Peak Hour Traffic Including the Proposal

a. Estimate daily traffic from the proposal at the location
(Step 1.2, page 36).

b. Estimate what share of proposal traffic will occur during
the peak hour (Tables 2-4, 2-5)*.

c. -Add this to the non-proposal future peak hour traffic.

3.6 Calculate the 7o Increase in Peak Hour Traffic

Compute the percentage increase (above current peak hour
traffic) expected with and without the proposal.

3.7 Judgethe Current Peak Hour "Level of Service"

Table 2-6 and Figure 3 describe levels of traffic service
which result from the relationship of traffic demand and street
capacity. People can usually quickly agree on which level best
describes the current situation. The level can also be calculated,
but that is complexand, by our observation, subject to a great
deal of error even when done by professionals.

If you want a.numerical check, the following usually result
in level C service:

350-500 vehicles per hour per travel lane at intersections
400-500 vehicles per hour each way on uninterrupted two-
lane roads
800-1,200 vehicles per hour per lane on unterrupted four-
lane roads
Up to 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane on some expressways.

*Direction of traffic can also be easily estimated where necessary.
For example, an apartment complex might add 1,000 trips a day to a
nearby street. About 107o,'or 100 trips, will occur during the eve-
ning rush hour. Of these 100 trips, about 357o or 35 trips will be
outbound from the development. The rest, about 65 trips, will be
heading toward the development.

Table 2-6
LEVELS OF SERVICE

Level of
Service Description

A: little traffic, no delays or speed reduction due to
traffic, relatively free flow

B: slight reduction in speed due to other cars on road

C: satisfactory speeds, reas onably stable flow, speeds
and maneuverability restricted by other cars, occasional
minor delays

D: occasional serious delays, little space for maneuvering,
some cars may have to wait for signal to turn green
twice before going through an intersection

E: unstable flow; continuous backups at many intersections
creating intolerable delays; hard for traffic to enter
from cross streets

F: very low speeds, cars backed up from one intersection
to another; jammed

Source: Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 1965.

FIGURE 3 C@ntin'u'ed.

LEVEL D.

9-j t= g= t=2 L= r= C= ml =2 t- LZ3 L= I= Lam

LEVEL E.

l::A g-.3 r-- --i 9-- -.-A r@ u-n r--,j t z3 t:m r---i im r=j Lzm r--:z rz@ r-z3 t= t=3 KZ3 9=3 r=s F_-_l 9=3 Lom t.::m

. . . . . . . . . .

LEVEL F.

t=3 [--I RZ-11 &L:2 1.-:;i g
9:11 -.3 9 1 V j I -A V.-I I Li 9

77'

FIGURE 3 LEVjILS OF SERVICE.

J@EVEL A.

77,
p, _L17,

LEVEL B.

LEVEL C.

]a Ewa
[AL-n

3.8 Estimate the Future Level of Service

If the level of service is now at level B or lower, each 15%
increase in peak hour volume will result in approximately one step
lower level of service. If service is now at level A, comparison
with the volume/service level relationships given in the paragraph
above may enable an estimate to be made.

3.9 Evaluation

Is service anticipated to be lower than Level C? Is level E
or F expected? Deteriorating service can mean delays for drivers
(or detours to avoid the congested street); air pollution from
backed up cars; And a greater need for street improvements such'as
wider pavements, signals, one-way loops and no-parking regulations.

Officials who normally deal with traffic and traffic improve-
ments in the community (e.g., selectmen, highway surveyor or super-
intendent, chief of local department of public works, police chief
and/or traffic safety officer, representatives of the State D.P.W.
area office) can help consider or review the scope of improvements
Jhat might be needed. Note that improvements and similar measures
not only have financial costs, but other costs as well: trees cut
down, front yards sliced off, retail sales reduced a.s/parking and
driving become more difficult, and greater public controversy.

To illustrate, suppose a two-lane road serving residential
traffic now carries 12,000 vehicles per day. Peak hour is estimated
to be 10% of that, or 1,200 vehicles (Step 3.3). Future development
to be served by the street is estimated to add 300 vehicles per hour
to that, for a non-proposal future peak hour of 1,500 vehicles (Step
3.4). A proposed 500-unit development served only by that street
will generate 500 units x 8.5 trips/unit x 10% in peak hour, or
addition of about 400 trips in the peak hour, bringing it to 1,900
vehicles (Step 3.5). This means a 25% increase in peak hour traffic
without the proposal, a 60% increase in traffic with it (Step 3.6).

Current level of service is judged to be level "B", based on
residents' consensus (Step 3.7). The 25% increase in traffic ex-
pected without the proposal will lower the-level of service by 1+
steps (25% + 15%) to level C or possibly to level D. The 607o in-
crease in traffic expected with the proposal will lower the level
of service 4 steps (60% t 1-57Tor to level F (Step 3.8).

Actually, level F might not occur. Street capacity improve-
ments might be made, or congestion might divert traffic onto other
streets, or the traffic would be so bad, not all of the planned
500 dwellings would be built and occupied, or public transport
might be provided.

4. QUALITY OF LIFE

Substantial traffic increases can affect the quality of life
on nearby streets, even if there are no major safety or congestion
problems. More cars mean more air pollution, noise, vibrations and
traffic dangers; in some cases, the street may have to be widened
or straightened. All these changes can make a residential street
amuch less pleasant place to live.

In reviewing proposals, the community should:

a. Watch out for substantial increases in average daily
traffic (e.g., more than 25% above what was expected on the street
anyway).

b. Also watch out for proposals likely to generate consider-
able truck traffic (factories, warehouses, truck terminals, regional
shopping centers) in residential areas.

C. Try to make sure that major traffic generators have egresses
onto (or close to) major collector or arterial streets, rather than
local residential streets.

5. REQUIRING ANALYSIS FOR SPECIAL PERMITS

Professional analysis is appropriate for proposals likely to
have large or unclear impacts. In many cases, the developer of a
major traffic generator can be required t.o submit a traffic analysis
as part of a Special Permit application*. The community can require
such an analysis in the following way.

5.1 Only Allow Major Traffic Generators on Special Permit

Table 2-7 suggests land uses likely to generate more than 250,
500, and 1,000 trips per day. The lower number may-be an appropriate
threshold for requiring special permits in small rural communities;
the higher number may be appropriate in large communities.

5.2 Listing Traffic Criteria for Special Permit Approval

Possible criteria** are that major traffic generators should:

a.- provide at least 400 feet visibility in each travel
direction***;

*Developers sometimes need such studies anyway, in order to design
the final site plan for large developments and/or to apply to the
State Department of Public Works for a curb cut on a state road.
**These criteria are illustrative and should be adjusted for any
particular community.
***See page. 44 for more detailed standards.

Table 2-7
MAJOR TRAFFIC GENERATORS

likely to have more than
250 trips 500 trips 1,000 trips
Land Use per day_ per day per day

Residential
Single-family homes 30+ du 60+ du 120+ du
Multi-family 40+ 75+ 150+
Mobile homes 40+ 80+ 160+

Commercial
Shopping center Any Any Any
Supermarket Any Any Any
Car wash, gas station Any Some
Drive-in bank Any Any Any
Other stores 5,000+ gsf 10@000+ gsf 20,000+ gsf
Fast food restaurant Any Any Any
Other restaurants 11500+ gsf 32000+ gsf 6.1000+ gsf
Hotel, motel with
convention
facilities Any 50+ rooms 100+ rooms
Other motel 45+ rooms 90+ rooms 180+ rooms

Industrial
Industrial (in general) 4+ acres 8+ acres 15+ acres
Manufacturinga 100+ employees 200+ employees 400+ employees
Industrial Park Any Any Any
Warehouse 50+ employees 100+ employees 200+ employees
Truck Terminal Any 40,000+ gsf 80,000+ gsf

Office
Office building 251000+ gsf 50,000+ gsf 100,000+ gsf
Medical office building Any 10,000+ 20.9000+

Table 2-7 (cont.)

likely to have more than
.250-trips 500 trips 1,000 trips
Land Use per day per day, per day

Institutional
General hospital Any Any 70+ beds
Long-term care hospital 70+ beds 140+ beds 280+ beds
College Any 210+ students 420+ students
Airport Any 140+ acres 280+ acres

Recreation
Stadium 250+ seats 500+ seats 1,000+ seats
Drive-in theater- Any 250+ spaces 500+ spaces
Golf course Any 90+ acres 180+ acres
Marina 60+ berths 120+ berths 250+ berths
Ski area, skating rink,
beach, movie theater Any Some Some

gsf gross square feet of building floor area
du dwelling unit
aAlso research and development

Sources: Based on Table 2-1 data

Format based on Martha's Vineyard Commission, "Table of Regional Traffic Ge nerators",
October, 1975.

b. not have any street egress within 250 feet of either an
intersecting street or an egress from a parking area serving 30 or
more vehicles*;

c. not create or significantly worsen traffic safety problems
on any street within I mile;
2

d. not result in traffic above the level "C" service capacity
of roads and intersections at any point within i mile, using defi-
2
nitions and methods of estimation as outlined in the Highway Capa-
city Manual, 1965 or later editions;

e. not increase average daily traffic by more than 25% above
current levels** on any street within i mile;
2

f. not increase average daily truck traffic by more than 25%
above current levels** on any street within i mile;
2

g. provide access to an arterial or collector street via ways
serving 10 or fewer single-family homes.

5,3 Require Submission of Professional Analysis

Analysis by a qualified traffic engineer can be required,
including:

a. Calculations at critical locations to show compliance with
the criteria.

b. A narrative statement describing any traffic safety
problems that may result.

C. A narrative statement suggesting actions by the de veloper
or the community that would be needed to Orovide compliance with
the criteria.

6. PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS FOR OTHER PROPOSALS

In some cases, a major traffic generator will be proposed but
the community does not or cannot require a Special Permit. In such
cases (e..g., a rezoning, a proposed public facility, etc.), public
officials might want to roughly estimate possible impacts to see
whether a professional analysis is needed. If they decide one is
needed, the community could provide the analysis itself (staff or
outside assistance) or request that those making the proposal pro-
vide a traffic analysis. Such analysis might be similar to that
described for a Special Permit.

*See page 44 for more detailed standards.
**Or, above levels expected within 5 years.

CHAPTER 2A

TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING

SUMMARY

We have taken a quick look at the traffic impacts of proposed
commercial zoning near the Drum Hill rotary. Methods.were those
outlined in the "Traffic Impacts" chapter. Findings are not sur-
prising. If a regional shopping center is built on the site, there
will be serious,, negative traffic impacts, as suggested in the
Comprehensive Plan Update:

"Undoubtedly the strongest impact will be on traffic flow
in the Drum Hill area and careful engineering and roadway
improvements would be necessary."*

A regional shopping center would greatly increase traffic on
nearby roads, several of which do not seem adequate to handle the
extra traffic. It seems likely that severe congestion would result
on Drum Hill rotary, Drum Hill Road,. Westford Street (Lowell), and
North Road (from the site to 1-495). This means: major delays
during evenings and Saturdays for all drivers using those roads
(not just drivers going to the shopping center); drivers making
detours to avoid those roads; or, major improvements to increase
road capacity.

What would these improvements involve? We dcnlt think town
costs are a major issue, since of the nearby affected roads, the
town is only responsible for Drum Hill Road**, and shopping center
tax benefits should easily offset town costs there ("Fiscal Impacts
of Drum Hill Rezoning"). Incremental improvements seem possible on
North and Drum Hill Roads,- these might include road widening, traffic
signals at shopping center egresses, etc.

The most serious.issue is probably the Route 3-Drum Hill rotary.
The shopping center would roughly double the amount of traffic on the
rotary. Without a detailed study we can't dismiss the possibility
that the rotary simply can't carry the loads to be imposed on it.
If that happens, we don't know of any simple solutions. Total re-
design, reconstruction and enlargement might be required, possibly
in conjunction with a new Route 213. Rotary improvements are up to
the State Department of Public Works, which also must approve the
developer's curb cuts onto North Road.

*William Melia, "Comprehensive Plan Phase One", June, 1975.
**North Road and the rotary are state highways. Westford Street is
a Lowell street.

The following,town actions would be appropriate:

1. Before rezoning the area, the town should obtain a profes-
sional traffic analysis of the shopping center's,effect on the
rotary. Analysis might be provided by the D.P.W., the developer, or
private traffic engineer hired by the town.

.2. The findings of this analysis should be reviewed with the
state D.P.W. Key questions are how the D.P.W. might respond to the
curb cut application andhow they might deal with the rotary. Re-
view may give a better sense of whether and when a shopping center
could happen. Some possibilities may become clearer:

a. The state might require the developer to make major
contributions for road improvements. This appears to be an emerging
state policy and could effectively prevent development if construed
to include rotary, improvements.

b. If rotary improvements are not to be made, the shopping
.center might not be economically feasible. Severe congestion might
deter shoppers from going to the center, reducing potential sales.

C. The shopping center might depend on construction of
Route 213 (which could reduce some street traffic in the area and
involve rebuilding of the rotary). This would put development a
long way off, since Route 213 is far from certain to be built in the
near future.

3. In considering rezoning, the town should decide whether
such major developments should be allowed outright or only on Spe-
cial Permit. Special Permit procedure would allow public review of
the specific development proposal, provide a publichearing, and en-
able the town to impose conditions on the development.

4. Special Permit criteria already deal with traffic impacts,
including "congestion, hazard, or substantial change in established
neighborhood character". (Sec. 11.1.2, Chelmsford Zoning Bylaw).
It is possible to make these criteria more precise and to require
the developer to submit a professional traffic analysis demonstrat-
ing compliance (see "Traffic Impacts").

5. The town mi ght consider a bylaw controlling curb cuts on
town roads, roughly similar to D.P.W. control over state roads.
Criteria might include safe egress, clearly defined (not continuous)
driveways, distance from other driveways, and the developer's agree-
ment to share in street improvements needed to make the egress safe.

Traffic impacts were estimated as follows. Estimates are based
on the current road system and would change if Route 213 were built.

TRAFFIC FROM DEVELOPMENT

A regional shopping center as proposed at Drum Hillwould in-
volve an enormous amount of auto traffic. About 50,000 trips per
day.would begin or end there (Table 2A-1). This is very large com-
pared to possible development under industrial zoning (5,000 trips
per day) and current traffic on major roads (about 12,000 daily
trips each on Drum Hill and North Roads).

Traffic Distribution

Table 2A-2 shows where shopping center traffic might come from.
This is a rough guess based on the market area for the regional
shopping center, population and income in surrounding towns, each
town's distance from the site, and the location of streets and
highways.

Traffic has then been estimated for each road near the site
(Figure 41. Assumptions could be changed but main results would
probably not be affected:

a. the majority of shopping center.traffic will use the
rotary;

b. a substantial share will use Westford Street in Lowell.

Traffic Increases at Critical Locations

Shopping center traffic was compared with the traffic other-
wise expected on roads near the site and at some problem intersec-
tions in other parts of town (such as Central Square)*. Changes
would be dramatic (Table 2A-3). Traffic could roughly double on
North Road (from the site to 1-495), Drum Hill.rotary, Drum Hill
Road, and Westford Street in Lowell. Substantial increases might
also occur on Parkhurst**, Old Westford, and Graniteville Roads.

CONGESTION

Traffic increases will affect the "level of service" at criti-
cal locations. Levels of service are noticed by every driver, rang-
ing from A, ideal flow, to F, major traffic jam;.C is considered
reasonably stable flow To quickly guess the extent of future con-
gestion due to the shopping center (Table 2A-4):

*Intersections identified as needing major improvements in the Area-
wide T.O.P.I.C.S. Plan, 1972.
**Increasingly used as a bypass as rotary congestion worsens, accord-
ing to the T.O.P.I.C.S. Plan.

Table 2A-1
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FROM DEVELOPMENT AT DRUM HILL

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Assumed development Industrial Park Regional Shop-
ping Center

Assumed building floor area 550,000 s.f. 1,260,000 s.f.
Trips per 1,000 s.f.a 9.3 40
Total trips b 51000 50)000

a"Traffic Impacts, Table 2-1.
bRounded off to nearest 1,000.

Table 2A-2
GENERAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FOR SHOPPING CENTER

% of
Shopping
Street Direction Center Traffic Towns Served

Route 3 north 9 Tyngsborough; possibly Groton (via Route
.40) and Nashua

North Road north 9 North Chelmsford, Lowell (via Princeton St.)

Westford Street east 26 Lowell, Dracut

Route 3 south 26 Billerica, Lowell (via connector); 495
east to Tewksbury, possibly Andover, etc.

North Road (and south 23 Central and South Chelm sford; 495 west to
Parkhurst Road) Westford, possibly Littleton, etc.

00 Old Westford Road west 7 West Chelmsford, Westford

TOTAL 100

Herr Associates' estimates

FIGURE 4: SHOPPING CENTER TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION.

lglpl@l pr--Pl
7AY 0,/)

16@
j
00
l%@ooo

IWO C7@yo
01

10,000

WO 11',00

Table 2A-3
INCREASE IN DAILY TRAFFIC AT CRITICAL LOCATIONS

% increase
Traffic Shopping Due to
Figure 5 Expected Center Shopping
Reference Street Location Anywaya Traffic Center

I North Rd. Groton Rd. lOY800 1,500 23

2 North Rd. Princeton 131200 4Y500 34
St.

3 North Rd. just north 13,200 15@500 117
of rotary
4 Drum Hill 351 000b 31Y500 90
Rotary

5 North Rd. just south 14,400 10YO00 83
of rotary

6 North Rd. Dalton Rd., 10,800 93000 83

7 Central 34,000 5@500 16
Square
8 Westford St. Lowell 13P700c 13P000 95

9 Drum Hill Rd. just east 141400 16,7000 ill
of rotary

10 Old Westford just west 102800 3Y500 32
Rd. of rotary

11 0 Id Westford Westford 61000 1,500 25
Rd. St.

12 Graniteville School St. 41800 1,200 25
Rd.

13 Parkhurst Rd. 3,600 1,500 42

a1972 traffic count (areawide T.O.P.I.C.S. Plan) plus assumed 20% in-
b crease by time shopping center is complete.
c Estimate, based on streets entering rotary.
Estimate of 1978 traffic in U.S. Department of Transportation and
Mass. Department of Public Works, Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment, State Route 213, 1975.

Table 2A-4
POSSIBLE FUTURE CONGESTION AT CRITICAL LOCATIONS

4
;@ Traffic
Est. Increase Est.
Current Due to Future
Figure 5 Level of Shopping Level of
Reference Street Location Servicea Centerb Servicec

I North Rd. Groton Rd. C 23 D

2 North Rd. Princeton A 34 not worse
St. than C

3 North Rd. just north B 117 F
of rotary

4 Drum Hill D 90 F
Rotary

5 North Rd. just south C 83 F
of rotary

6 North Rd. Dalton Rd., C 83 F
1-495

7 Central D 16 E
Square

8 Westford St. Lowell C 96 F

9 Drum Hill Rd. just east D ill F
of rotary

10 Old Westford just west A 32 not worse
Rd. of rotary than C

11 Old Westford Westford A 25 not worse
Rd. St. than C

12 Graniteville School St. A 25 not worse
Rd. thati C

13 Parkhurst Rd. B 42 D

aPlanning Board estimates at evening rush hour
bTable 2A-3
cAssumes that if service is now B, each 15% traffic increase means
one worse level of service. Also assumes no street improvements.

.FIGURE 5 CRITICAL LOCATIONS.

vaA,

4y
0 4ZI-06AL, L4VIII(IN61.

Source: PBH&A 2/4/ 7.0,

a. Planning Board members were asked to describe the current
level of service during the evening rush hour (using descriptions
and illustrations in thEi-I'Traffic Impacts" chapter).

b. It was assumed that evening rush hour traffic would in-
crease by about the same percentage as daily traffic.

c.. As a rule of thumb, if service is now at level B or worse,
each 15% traffic increase probably means one worse level of service.*

d. This provides a rough guide to the future level of service
at critical locations unless improvements are made. Serious prob-
lems are certain to occur where future service is estimated as "F11.

SAFETY

Shopping center traffic may create safety problems in a number
of ways:

1. Substanti al traffic increases. The extra traffic will in-
crease the danger of accidents throughout the Drum Hill area, simply
by virtue of more cars being on the roads.

2. Increases at hazardous locations. Some of the largest
traffic increases will occur where there are already safety prob-
lems (Table 2A-5). Shopping center traffic will certainly make
these situations worse.

3. Driveway locations. Dangers mentioned above are largely
inevitable if a regional shopping center is built on the site.
Driveway location and design can create additioaal problems, some
of which are relatively easy to modify. Quick review of the devel-
oper's preliminary site plan** (the proposed egresses from the
Center are shown in Figure 6) raises the following concerns:

a.;.z.Distance from existing driveways and intersections.
The Drum Hill Road egress ("B") is only 250 feet from the beginning
of the rotary, and only 100 feet from an existing driveway. Turning
conflicts could be reduced by setting the driveway further back from
the rotary (say, 600 ft.).

b. Number of driveways. In addition to the mal1@complex,
the developer is also planning a number of small commercial build-
ings along North and Drum Hill Roads (in areas already zoned for
commerce). Each of these buildings would have a separate driveway,
some very close to the main egresses for the mall (especially "B"

*See "Traffic Impacts".
**Derwood Quade, "Proposed Site Development Plan for the Mall at
Drum Hill Road and North Road", prepared for General Growth Prop-
erties, March 26, 1975.

Table 2A-5
TRAFFIC INCREASES AT HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS

Traffic
Increase
Due to
Figure 5 Shopping Accidents Problems Identified
Reference Street Location Center in 1970a by T.O.P.I.C.S. Plan

North Rd. Groton Rd. 23 8 Poor sight distances, skewed
approaches
2 North Rd. Princeton 34 4 Inadequate channelization and
St. traffic signal
4 Drum Hill 90 45 Weaving traffic; short weaving
rotary b areas
5 North Rd. just south 83 5 At Parkhurst Road, inadequate
of rotary traffic controls
6 North Rd. Dalton Rd., 83 10 Blind curve on North Rd., off-
1-495 set approaches of Dalton Rd.
7 Central Square 16 25 Inadequate channelization and
curb radii
9 Drum Hill Rd. just east 111 frequent driveways
of rat ary
11 Old Westford Westford 25 5 Poor sight distance, vertical
Rd. St. curve, tight curb radii
12 Graniteville School St. 42 6 Poor visibility, tight curb
Rd. radii
13 Parkhurst Rd. 42 See location 5 above

aAccidents reported with over $200 property damage
bAt Parkhurst Rd.-Davis Rd. intersection

Source: Accident numbers and problems from Areawide T.O.P.I.C.S. Plan

FIGURE 6: SHOPPING CENTER EGRESSES (From Preliminary Site Plan)

JLV

M2AWIM& NOT -0 %NX--

and I'D"). Driveways should either be separated by a greater dis-
tance (say, 250 or 500 feet) or, better, combined so that all
buildings are served by the major mall egresses and access road.

C. Turning movements. The egress in Lowell ("C") may
create complex and conflicting traffic movements, from Carl to
Westford Street and possibly to Parkhurst Road. Professional ana-
lysis may be needed to determine a satisfactory traffic pattern at
this location.

,In addition, there will be heavy left turn movements at Drum
Hill Road ("B", from rotary into development) and North Road ("A",
from development out to rotary). An immediate solution isn't
obvious*.

QUALITY OF LIFE

The shopping center is well-located to avoid major traffic in-
creases on local, minor residential streets. It fronts on two of
the town's most heavily used streets and provides almost direct
access to an expressway.

However, the traffic increases, congestion, and safety prob-
lems will affect the quality of life of many residents. Examples:-

a. Until (and unless) improvements are made, major traffic
back-ups will,affect people driving on such streets as North Road.

b. People who live on such streets as North Road, Old Westford
Road, and Graniteville Road (and children who go to school there)
will have to tolerate more noise, vibrations, pollution. Children
and other pedestrians will have to be more cautious when using the
street.

c. The shopping center will involve a large number of truck
trips, many more than an industrial park would.

*A one-way pattern, in at North Road and out at Drum Hill Road, might
make congestion even worse on a key section of the rotary.

Table 2A-6
TRUCK TRIPS

Current Zoning_ Proposed Zoning

Total Daily Trips 51000 50YOOO

Truck Trips

of totala 3% 5%

per day 150 2Y500

aBased on Louis Keefer, t'Urban Travel Patterns for Airports, Shop-
Ping Centers and Industrial Plants", Highway Research Board, 1966.

d. Shopping center traffic may accelerate the need for inter-
section improvements which have social and environmental costs,,such
as property taking or the removal of trees and foliage.

Some of these effects are hard to measure but are nevertheless
important in considering the traffic impacts of major commercial
development on the site*.

*Another potential.concern is adequacy of parking spaces. We don't
:.foresee this as a problem at the shopping center. The site plan
provides 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. floor area, a standard recom-
mended by the Urban Land Institute and estimated by them to accom-
modate all parking except during th-e 10 peak shopping hours each
year: J. Ross McKeever, Shopping Center Zoning, Urban Land Insti-
tute, 1973. The Comprehensive Plan suggested 5 spaces per 1,000
sq. ft. (See. 7.5.1 Proposed Zoning Bylaw, 1975). Chelmsford now
requires 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. plus I space per 2 employees
(Sec. 6.3.1 Chelmsford Zoning Bylaw), much higher than many current
standards.

CHAPTER 3

FISCAL IMPACTS

Fiscal effects of development are often a major concern. How
will the proposal affect the local tax rate: will taxes from the
develOpment pay for the added police, fire, school and other ser-
vices? Where a development requires major public improvements,
another question mayalso be important: what will be the effect
on the community's debt and its ability to borrow money for other
needed improvements? This chapter suggests methods for answering
these questions.

It should be recognized that the fiscal consequences of
development depend heavily upDn the fiscal system dictated by
state law. Increasingly, state aid and fiscal law is aimed at
equalizing tax burdens among municipalities, which means reducing
the fiscal significance of "tax profitable" or "tax deficit"
development. It seems likely that the future will see this trend
continue. This could mean serious disappointment for the community
which accepted otherwise undesirable development for tax gain that
was later legislated away, or for the community which denied other-
wise desirable development because of presumed tax deficit that
future legislation could offset.

This uncertainty has important implications:

predictions are perilous; note that methods and findings
in this chapter are based on the current state-local fiscal system;

fiscal impacts should not monopolize study effort and
attention; other issues may deserve more detailed study;

- decisions on development proposals should not be based
primarily on fiscal considerations,which are hard to forecast and
may be transitory.

Decisions based solely on fiscal considerations also raise
ethical problems. Carried to an extremeY such decision-making re-
sults in social exclusion, identification of all children as
liabilities, and distortion of patterns of economic growth.

Key Aspects of Development

Community review of development proposals should usually focus
on the following aspects of development which often have the largest
fiscal consequences.

Residential v. Non-Residential. Commercial and industrial
developments pay school taxes but do not directly add school child-
ren. They are usually fiscally profitable. Residential development
is usually not'as profitable; it is often subsidized by commercial
and industrial uses.

Number of School Children. More children per dwelling unit
means higher school costs and worse fiscal impact. This is usually
the single biggest influence on-fiscal balance of residential
development. Number of children depends largely on the housing
type and, especially, on the number of bedrooms per unit.

Multi-Family Tenure. Depending on local assessment practices,
condominiums may pay considerably more in taxes than do similar
rental units.

Seasonal Occupancy. Seasonally occupied units do not have
school costs and cost less for other public services. They are
much more profitable than year-round units. Be careful, however.
Many "second" homes eventually become first homes.

Major Public Improvements. Developments which precipitate
major increases in the capacity of public facilities (a new well,
sewage treatment plant, school, etc.) can be unusually costly and
affect the community's debt ratio and borrowing ability.

Phasing of Developnent. The phasing of the development can
have a critical effect on the timing of required public improvements
and on the community's ability to extend its services and facilities
in a gradual and planned manner.

Special Tax Arrangements. Developments "taxed" under Ch.
121A pay much less to the community than conventional developments,
but don't diminish state school aid in the way conventionally
assessed developments do.

Internal Services. Large developments may provide many of
their own services (such as security guards, recreation facilities,
water supply), reducing the public service costs.

.Suggestions for Fiscal Studies

Fiscal studies deal with many factors and often raise ques-
tions about what should and should not be counted. The following
general suggestions may be useful*.

Focus on Change in the Tax Rate. This is where property
owners will feel the real fiscal effect of the development.
Estimate the change from the current local tax rate if the proposal
had already been approved, built, occupied and paying taxes**.

*See also Thomas Muller, Fiscal Impacts of Land Development, A
Critique of Methods and Review of Issues, Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute, 1975.
**Normal assumptions are that (a) inflation can be ignored because
the development's revenues would increase just as its costs do;
and (b) the development is a net addition to the community; even
if the residents and shops occupying it come from elsewhere in
town, it is assumed outsiders will move in to replace them.

Count Both Costs and Revenues. A developer may only point out
the new revenues his development will provide. Opponents may only
point out the new school that will be needed. Both elements should
be taken into account.

Be Consistent in the Portion of Costs and Revenues Analyzed.
Normally, analysis should be confined to those costs funded by
property taxes, excluding those paid by excise taxes, revenue
sharing, s'tate aid, etc., and comparing those costs with revenues
derived from property taxes. Change in level of state school aid
should also normally be analyzed, especially in the case of devel-
opment involving few or no school children, since the level of that
aid is of ten strongly af f ected and is highly signif icant to the tax rate.

Make Rough Estimates. Precise calculations are rarely worth
the effort, since the basic assumptions of fiscal analysis are
quite crude. Local spending and tax rates, for example, change
every year. Public services, by their nature, serve the entire
community, so trying to identify the cost's a particular develop-
ment will add is at best an approximation.

Use Averaae Costs. Assume that new development has the same
average costs (per pupil, per dwelling) as present development in
the community. (Exception: where major public improvements are
required, compute debt service attributable to the new develop-
ment). Rather than use average costs, one could try to figure
out, item-by-item, all the marginal costs due to a development.
Such an approach is very time-consuming, however, requires many
assumptions, may not add much accuracy, and, in fact, often
greatly underestimates the eventual costs of serving the develop-
ment.

Treat School Costs Separately. They are the single largest
item in local budgets, are easy to distinguish, and vary enormously
by land use.

In Most Cases, Treat All Other Costs as a Single Item. There
are many other public services, each of which makes up a relatively
small fraction of total costs. Local costs of each function are
hard to identify separately. Therefore, line-by-line analysis of
the local budget* is probably only worth the extra effort where
a very large development is proposed.

*For examples of a line-by-line approach, see Adams, Howard and
Opperman, "Comprehensive Development Plan, Town of Lincoln", 1965;
Brookline Planning Department, "Residential Cost-Revenue Analysis",
July, 1973; and Susan Levine Houston, "The Costs and Revenues
Generated by Low and Moderate Income Housing in the Suburbs:
A Study of Newton", unpublished, Master of City Planning Thesis,
MITI 1972.

Compare the propos al, to Alternative Development. What will
happen on the site if the proposal is rejected? If other new
development is likely, estimate the tax rate change it would cause*.
If no alternative development is likely (say within 5 or 10 years),
this step can safely be ignored.

Steps in Fiscal Analysis

The following steps are involved in estimating the tax impact
of new development.

1. Estimate revenues;

2. Estimate school costs;

S. Estimate non-school costs;

4. Estimate change in state school aid;

5. Estimate average year debt service of major public im-
provements.(if relevant);

6. Compute potential change in current tax rate;

7. Adjust for secondary impacts of development (if any).

These steps are outlined below. For steps 3 and 4, separate
methods are shown for residential development (3A, 4A) and for
non-residential development (3B, 4B).

STEP 1. ESTIMATE REVENUES

Revenues are equal to the total tax rate times the assessed
value of the property.

Revenues Assessed Value (in $1,000's) x Total Tax Rate

*Tax rate change if the proposal is approved and if it is rejected
can be weighted by probability of development in each-case (e.g.,
40% chance, 80% chance).

1.1 Estimate Assessed Value Per Unit

Realistically estimate the assessment per dwelling unit or per
square foot of building floor area. Approaches: obtain a ballpark
figure from the assessor based on the type and quality of develop-
ment; check assessments of similar recent projects; or estimat)e the
market value (from the developer or similar projects) and adjust it
by the equalization ratio for your community*.

1.2 Determine Assessed Value of Proposed Development

Multiply the assessment per unit by the number of units pro-
posed_(e.!'g.i estimated $30,000 valuation per dwelling unit x 200
dwelling units = $6,000,000 assessed valuation).

1.3 Estimate Property Tax Revenues

Multiply the assessed value of the development in $1,000's
by the total tax rate. The current total tax rate can be obtained.
from the assessors (it is printed on your tax bill).

Sample calculations are shown below:

Est. Assessed Value (per dwellingper sq.ft.) ....... $ 30,000
x # of units proposed ................................. 200
Assessed value of"development ....................... $6,000 000
1,000 ............................................... 1,000
Asses-sed value of development in $1,000's ........... 6,000
x Total Tax Rate ........................ 0.: ........... 42.00
EST. PROPERTY TAX REVENUES .............. ........... $ 250,000a

a
rounded off

*This is the ratio.of.assessed value in the community to the equal-
ized ("full market") value estimated by the State Tax Commission.
The ratio reflects under-assessment in each community but should
be used cautiously for any particular development. A community's
assessed and equalized valuations can be obtained from the assessor
or the Bureau of Local Assessment, Department of Corporations and
Taxation. An example:

assessed value of community ........................ $28,000,000
equalized value of community ....................... $33,000,000
equalization ratio ................................. 0.85
x estimated market value of unit ..................... $ 351000
estimated assessed value of unit ................... $ 30P000

Equalization ratios are also listed directly in the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, "Municipal Financial Data: Including 1976
Tax Rates" (updated annually). This publication also contains
other useful data for fiscal analysis.

69 -

A different approach,is needed where property taxes are set
as a percentage of rent. Many communities tax apartments and com-
mercial properties at a certain percentage of the rent, usually
between 15% and 25%. Revenues can be estimated in these cases by:

a. Finding out what percentage is normally used (and whether
it is applied to the total rent roll) by checking with the assessor
or looking at tax payments and rents of other projects.

b. Multiplying the percentage by the expected annual rent
(developer's estimate or competitive projects):

Tax Percentage x Annual Rent = Est. Property Tax Revenues

STEP 2. ESTIMATE SCHOOL COSTS

This step only applies to year-round dwellings. School costs
are often the largest costs for residences and are estimated as
follows.

2.1 Determine Total Local Cost of Education

The school tax levy is the total school cost (including cap-
ital costs) supported from local property taxes (after state aid
and other offsetting revenues)*. The school tax levy (or "school
assessment')-can be obtained from the assessor**.

2.2 Compute Average Cost Per Pupil

Divide the school tax levy by total public school enrollment
(from the school department)***. This indicates the current average
cost per pupil. We assume that new pupils will cost the same as
present pupils, although in particular instances they may cost
either more or less.

*Do not use other figures (e.g., total school budget) since they
may reflect non-property tax revenues.
**Or computed:

School tax-levy = Community's assessed valuation (in $1,000's)
x,School Tax Rate (printed on your tax bill).

***Enrollment should be for the same year as the school tax levy.
It should include any pupils from the community who attend regional
schools, but exclude private school pupils. If you use state-
furnished or other standardized data, be sure what it includes.

2.3 Estimate Number of Pupils Per Unit in Proposed Development

The number of pupils varies dramatically by type and age of
dwelling (See Table 3-1, based in part on a very extensive Rutgers
University study*). Don't use the current community average. If
the proposal is similar to recent developments in the community, a
survey might be valuable (door-to-door or from school department
records). Otherwise, the following may be used:

a. Estimate pupils per dwelling unit based on the type of
development. Table 3-2 shows common differences between single-
family homes and several kinds of apartments.

b. If you know the number of. bedrooms, you can make a more
accurate estimate (See Table 3-3).

C. Adjust the estimate for any particular characteristics
of the development (elderly housing, etc.).

d. Adjust the estimate for particular characteristics of
the community. The great range in number of children from single-
family homes (Table 3-2) reflects these differences between com-
munities. To get a better local estimate for new homes, we often
as'sume that brand-new homes average one and one-half times the
number of children from existing homes in the community**.

2.4 Determine School Cost Per Proposed Dwelling Unit

This is simply the average cost per pupil (from 2.2) times
the number of pupils per unit (from 2.3). For example:

,$940 per pupil x 1.2 pupils per unit = $1,130 school cost per unit

- Where the-proposal includes several types of units (e.g.,
studios and 2-bedrooms; townhouses and garden apartments) estimate
the average--cost per unit for each type.

*George Sternlieb and Robert Burchell, "The Numbers Game: Fore-
casting Household Size", Urban Land, January, 1974.
**Thus, for communities which are mostly single-family:
Est. Pupils Per New I-Family Home =
Current Total Enrollment
1.5 x Number of dwelling units in community
See page 75 for estimating number of dwellings. This difference
between new and old homes is a rough rule of thumb but is consistent
with household size data in the 1970 U.S. Census of Housing, "Com-
ponents of Inventory Change, Boston S.M.S.A."

Table 3-1
NUMBER OF PUPILS PER UNIT: IMPORTANT FACTORS

Factor Effect

Age of dwelling New single-family homes have more
children than old single-family
homes (children grow up and leave).

Age has no clear effect on apart-
ment occupant.distribution.

Type of dwelling Single-family homes have more
children than apartments (have
more bedrooms, appeal to larger
families). Apartments have spe-
cial appeal to retired persons,
childless couples, young couples
with pre-school children.

Number of bedrooms The more bedrooms, the more child-
ren. This is often the single
most important factor.

Specialized type of Second homes: no children.
development Retirement communities, elderly
housing, singles complexes: few
children. Low-income family
housing: more children than
average.

Price of unit Much less important than number
of bedrooms. Rutgers study found
that: expensive homes and high-
rise apartments have more child-
ren, expensive garden apartments
have fewer.

Characteristics of community Role of community: e.g., bedroom
suburb has more children per unit,
college town has fewer.

Public school reputation: may
attract families with more child-
ren.

Strong parochial schools: may
reduce public school enrollments.

Source: Herr Associates; Sternlieb and Burchell, "The Numbers
Game"

Table 3-2
TYPICAL NUMBER OF PUPILS PER NEW DWELLING UNIT

Type of Dwelling . . . Rutgers Study_ Common Range

High-rise apartment .07 .03 - .15
Garden apartment .16 .10 - .30
Townhouse apartment or condominium .51 .35 - 1_00
Single-familyhome .90 .90 - 2.00

Table 3-3
NUMBER OF PUPILS PER UNIT, BY BEDROOMS

Type of Number of Number of Pupils Per Unit
Dwelling Bedrooms Rutgers Study Range of Other Studiesa

High-Rise 0 (studio) .00
Apartments 1 -01 .05
2 .18 .13
3 .32

Garden 1 .05 .01 - .10
Apartments 2 .34 .23 - .42
3 .84 - 1.03

Townhouses 2 .22 .26
3 .67 .44 - .94
4 1.03 .90 - 2.10

Single- 2 .2o
Family 3 .63 .50 - 1.40
Homes 4 1.29 1.63 - 2.02
5 .2.19 - 2.63
6 2.60

a
'Illinois School Consulting Service, reported in Michael Levin,
"Cost-Revenue Impact.Analysis: State of the Art", Urban-Lana,
June, 1975; studies by Robert Burchell, Barton-Aschman Associates,
Paul Holley, and Monmouth County, N.J. Planning Board summarized in
Rutgers Study.

2.5-- Determine Total School Costs for Proposed Development

Multiply the average cost per dwelling unit by the number of
units proposed (e.g., $1,130 per unit x 200 units = $226,000 school
costs).

Where the proposal includes several types of units (e.g.,
studi8s, 2-bedrooms; single-family and apartments), first estimate
the costs fcr each set of units (e.g-, $600 per 1-bedroom unit x
10 1-bedroom units = $6,000; $1,200 per 2-bedroom unit x 20 2-
bedroom units = $24,000). Then sum all the costs (e.g., $6,000 +
$24Y000 @ $30,000).

Sample calculations are shown below:

School tax levy ............................. $770,800
Current enrollment .......................... 820 pupils
=_Averaki@ cost per pupil ...................... $ 940 !/pupil
x Est. pupils per proposed dwelling unit ...... 1.2 pupils
cost- -per-'-proposed dwelling unita ..... $ 1,130
x Number of proposed unitsa ................... 200
SCHOOL COST 6F_PA6POSED DEVELOPMENT ......... T230,000w
aThis can be calculated for an average unit in the development, or
bcan be calculated separately for each type of unit and then added
rounded off.

STEP 3A. ESTIMATE NON-SCHOOL COSTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

The following method can be used to quickly estimate all non-
school costs (police, fire, roads, general government) to service
proposed residential development. We assume that each new dwelling
will cost the same as the average dwelling in the community.

3A.1 Determine Total Non-School Costs in Community

The community's total non-school cost is its general tax levy
(property tax levy less school tax levy). This can be obtained from
the assessor*.

*or computed:
General Tax Levy Community Assessed Valuation (in $1,0001s)
x General Tax Rate.,
The general tax rate is prinied on your tax bill along with the
school-tax rate and the total tax rate, which combines the two.

3A.2 Determine Residential Non-School Costs

Only some public services go to residences. One can often
assume that the residential share of costs is simply the residential
share of property values. Total assessments by category of land use
are now available from either the local assessors or the Bureau of
Local Assessment, Department of Corporations and Taxation. Thus,
total residential costs might be estimated:

Total Residential Non-School Costs = General Tax Levy x

Residential Assessed V;iluation
Total Assessed Valuation

Assessed valuations are not always the best way of splitting
costs. If there is a nuclear power plant in the community, it may
use a small share of public services but make up a very large share
of assessments. Costs can be split instead in relation to each land'
usels share of the community's developed acreage (from a recent land
use survey) or share of employment (State Division of Employment
Security) plus population (1975 State Census). An item by item
split of costs can also be made, but the effort is seldom justified
by increase in accuracy.

3A.3 Estimate Non-School Costs Per Year-Round Dwelling Unit

'Divide the total residential costs by the number of dwellings
in the community to find the average cost per unit.

The total number of dwellings may be listed in a recent Master
Plan or estimated by the regional planning agency. If not, one can
use 1970 U.S. Census data and building permit records to estimate
the current number of dwelling units in the community. The follow-
ing steps are involved.

a. Find number of dwelling units for which building permits
were issued between 1970 and the, year preceding the year whose
costs are being analyzed. Building permit information can be ob-
tained from the building inspector or the Office of Code Develop-
ment, Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs.

b. Multiply the number of permits issued by 95%, to reflect
the fact that some permits were never used*.

C. Add the number of units built since 1970 (from 'Ibll)'to
the number of units listed in.the 1970 U.S. Census of Housing**.

*Also'subtract permits that were issued but never used for a large
development. Other adjustments are possible (demolitions, conver-
sions, etc.), but probably not worthwhile since the whole fiscal
analysis is quite general anyway.
**U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 U.S. Census of Housing; Volume I
Housing Characteristics for States, Cities and Counties; Part 23
Massachusetts.

Another approach is to determine the number of occupied units.
If the Building Inspector keeps tabs on the number of occupancy per-
mi.tsl the number issued since .1970 can be added to the number of
occupied units in the 1970 U.S. Census of Housing.

Adjustments are needed if the community now contains a large
number of seasonal units*.

3A.4 Estimate Non-School Costs for Proposed Year-Round-Dwellings

Multiply the average cost per year-round dwelling by the pro-
posed number of such units. If the-development only contains year-
round units, STOP. Sample calculations are shown below.

General Tax Levy .............................. $410,000
x % Residential (e.g., residential + total
assessed valuation in community) ............ 75%
Residential Non-School Costs .................. $307,500
Number of dwelling units in community ...*.-** 770 units
Average cost per year-round dwelling unit ..... $ 400/unit
x Number of year-round dwellings proposed ....... 200 units
NON-SCHOOL COST OF PROPOSED YEAR-ROUND
DWELLINGS ................................... $ 80,000

3A.5 Adjust for Seasonal Dwellings (If Proposed)

The following steps can be used to consider seasonal dwellings.

a. Estimate average cost per seasonal unit. This may be
about I the cost per year-round unit. Occupants may only be in the
2
communit of the year and thus make smaller demands on roads,
Y 4
libraries, sewers. However, they usually add to the peak period

*Seasonal units generally cost less to service. If they cost i as
much as year-round units, calculate costs per "equivalent" year-
round unit in the community as follows:

Non-School Cost per Year-Round Equivalent Unit

Residential Non-School Costs for Community
of Year-Round Units + AL x # of Seasonal Units
2

The 1970 U.S. Census of Housing lists seasonal units in two cate-
gories: "Vacant - Seasonal and Migratory" and "Vacant - Held for
Occasional Use". Remaining units are considered available for
year-round use. Note: seasonal housing in towns on Cape Cod is
currently being estimated by the Cape Cod Planning and Economic
.Development Commission.

demand for which roa ds and utilities are designed and require some
police and fire protection during the rest of the year. If year-
round units cost $400 each, we usually assume that seasonal units
cost $200 each. Jf feasible, adjust this fraction up or down de-
pending on local experience.

b. Estimate costs for all proposed seasonal units. Multiply
the average cost by the number of seasonal units proposed.

C. Add costs of seasonal units to costs of year-round units
to find the total ton-school costs of the development.

STEP 3B. ESTIMATE NON-SCHOOL COSTS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Costs of new commercial and industrial development can also be
estimated in terms of average unit costs. The non-residential share
of the general tax levy can be estimated and then determined per
acre, per employee, per $1,000 valuation. But the results are much
less reliable than residential cost estimates since commercial and
industrial development includes'such an enormous variety of land
uses.

Another approach might be to estimate a range of costs based
on the non-school taxes paid by the development. At a maximum,
commercial and industrial uses probably do not cost more to service
than they pay in such taxes*. (Some of the services, e.g., libra-
ries, recreation primarily serve residents). Some detailed cost
studies have implied that the non-school costs of such uses average
about 25% of their non-school revenues (Lincoln), 65% (Ashland),
and 60% (downtown Boston)*,@. Therefore, one might estimate a range
of non.-school costs:

Non-School Costs = (say .30 to .70) x Assessed Value of Development
x General Tax Rate

Percentages can be adjusted for the type of development.
Percentages might be very low for power plants but quite high for
downtown shops which add to peak traffic and parking demands and
require public police and fire protection.

*Unless they precipitate major public improvements. Note: even
if they only "break even" on non-school costs and revenues, com-
mercial and industrial uses can still be very profitable, since
they pay school taxes but have no school costs.
**.Lincoln Master Plan; Herr Associates "Revenue Analysis" for Ash-
land Finance Committee, revised December 11, 1972; and Boston
Municipal Research Bureau an.d,Abt Associates, The Effect of High
Density Development on-Municipal Finances in the Cit_y_ of Boston,
Boston, 1974. The ratio was 90% for one Boston area, an old
industrial section with low property values.

For major proposals it may be worthwhile to try to estimate
the new development's share of a few large cost items in the commun-
ity. For example, traffic from a new shopping center might equal
25% of current traffic in the community. It could be roughly as-
sumed that its highway costs would be about 25% of the current high-
way budget (from annual report, less state aid for highways). This
could be done for the largest non-school items in the community
(frequently highways, police and fire) to estimate a minimum cost
for the development. Total non-school revenues from the develop-
ment might suggest a maximum figure.

STEP 4A. ESTIMATE CHANGE IN SCHOOL AID DUE T 0 YEAR-ROUND RESI-
DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

New development can affect the Chapter 70 state school aid
formula, and thus the amount of school aid the community receives*.
Each community is reimbursed by the state for a certain share 'of
school costs: from a minimum of 15% to a maximum of 75%. The
community's aid percentage depends on its (equalized) assessments
and number of school children. New development with high assess-
ments and few children (e.g., luxury units, studio apartments) will
usually decrease the community's aid percentage. This means less
state aid for all pupils in the community. Low-cost units with
many children will usually increase the community's aid percentage.
This means more state aid for all pupils in the community.

A proposal's effect on the school aid percentage is sometimes
very significant and should be estimated. Be careful. Pultls
from the new development, of course, will receive some state aid.
That is not an extra cost or Pevenue due to the development; it is
already reflected in the local cost of education (step 2.2) and
should not be separately counted.

Calculating the effect of new development on school aid is
risky, since the formula may well change in the next few years.
However,-the program.itself seems sure to stay and to provide more
aid each.year. The formula, despite possible changes, is likely to
remain tied to-property values-per school child. The following
steps are a short cut, approximating change in the,complex official
formula. They are appropriate for residential developments which
are large or differ considerably from the community norm.

*Development can also affect the level of lottery aid received by
the community, but the effect is usually quite small.

- 78

4A.1 Find Out the Community_s Current School Aid Percentage

This can be obtained from the State Department of Education*.
Don't calculate school aid change if the aid percentage is now 15%
or 75%; the community is already at (or beyoncD the limits of the
formula; new development will probably not have any effect.

4A.2 Estimatel Increase in Enrollments Due to Proposal

Divide the proposal enrollment by the community's current en-
rollment. For example, there are now 820 pupils in the town. The
proposal will add 200 pupils, or about 25%.

4A.3 Estimate % Increase in Assessments Due to Proposal

Divide the assessed value of the development* by the current
assessed value of the community. For example, assessments might
go up by $6 million, a 21% increase over the town's $28 million
assessed value.

4A.4 Determine Net Difference Due to Proposal

Subtract the assessment increase (4A.3) from the enrollment
increase (4A.2). If the outcome is positive, state aid will go up.
If it is negative, state aid will go down. If assessments and en-
rollments go up at the same rate, there won't be any change in
state aid. If enrollment goes up 25% and assessments 21%, the net
difference is +4%.

4A.5 Determine % Gain or Loss in School Aid

Multiply the difference calculated at step 4A.4 by the appro-
priate multiplier in Table 3-4. This indicates the percentage gain
(or loss) in school aid. The right-hand column shows the maximum
loss possible. To continue the example, say the aid percentage is.
now 40%; multiply +4% by 1.5 (from Table 3-4), indicating a 6% gain
in aid.

*The Research, Planning and Evaluation Division publishes each com-
munity's school aid percentage in "Analysis of School Aid to
Massachusetts Cities and Towns, Chapter 70 Amended".
**If revenues were estimated directly (page 70), assessed value of
the proposal can be computed:
Assessed value of development (in $1,0001s) Revenues
Total Tax Rate

Table 3-4
SCHOOL AID CHANGE

Present.Aid Maximum % loss
Percentagea Multiplier in School Aid

20% 4.0 25%
25 3.0 40
30 2.3 50
35 1.9 57
40 1.5 62
45 1.2 67
50 1.0 70
55 0.8 73
60 0.7 75
65 0.5 77
70 0.4 79

aDon't calculate if the community's school aid percentage is now
15% or 75%.

4A.6 Find Out Mow Much Aid the Community Would Otherwise Receive

Find out how much aid the community now receives (from the
assessors or the Planning and Research Bureau, Department of Cor-
porations and Taxation) and increase it to reflect the % increase
in enrollments (from 4A.2). Say school aid is now $510,000 plus
25% increase for new pupils, or an anticipated total of $640,000.

4A.7 Estimate Change in School Aid Due to Proposal

Multiply the % gain or loss (from 4A.5) by the total amount
of aid (from 4A.6). In our sample case, a 67, gain times $640,000
means a net gain for the community of $38,000 a year as a result
of change in the school aid percentage.

If the residential development doesn't require major public
improvements, go directly to step 6 (page 83).

4B. ESTIMATE SCHOOL AID CHANGE DUE TO NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

This procedure applies to commercial and industrial proposals
and also to residential proposals which have only seasonally-occupied
units (and therefore have no school-enrolled children). Such pro-
posals add assessments but not school children. They can substan-
tially reduce Chapter 70 state school aid. A shopping center in
Chelmsford, for example, might reduce that town's Chapter 70 aid
by $200,000 a year. The reduction in aid can be estimated as
follows (see 4A for additional details).

4B.1 Find Out the Community's Current School Aid Percentage

This is available from the Research, Planning and Evaluation
Division,, State Department of Education. If the aid percentage is
now 15%, STOP: no,further calculations are needed; the proposal
will have no effect on state school aid.

4B.2 Estimate % Increase in Assessments Due to Proposal

Di.vide the assessed value of the-development by the current
assessed value of the community.

4B.3 Determine % Loss in School A id

Multiply the % increase in assessments by the appropriate
multiplier in Table 3-4. The result is the percentage loss in
school aid due to the development. Check the right-hand column of
the table for the maximum loss possible.

4B.4 Find Out How Much Aid the Community Now Receives

This can be obtained from the assessors or t he Planning and
Research Bureau, Department of Corporations and Taxation.

4B.5 Estimate School Aid Loss Due to Proposal

Multiply the % loss by the current amount of aid. For example-

Assessed Value of Development .............. $ 10,000,000
Current assessed value of community ........ 1002000YO00
% increase in assessed value 10%
x Multiplier from Table 3-4 .................. 1.5a
= % loss in school aid ....................... 15%
x Current school aid ......................... $ 2$0001000
EST. LOSS IN SCHOOL AID .................... $ 300Y000

aif aid percentage is now 40%

5. ESTIMATE COSTS FOR MAJOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (where relevant)

Cost estimates made to this point assume that proposed devel-
opment will have the same average-costs-(both operating and capital)
as existing development in the community. --A few@proposals, however,
impose-costs far-above the current community average by precipitating
certain major public improvements. In these cases, extra debt ser-
vice due to the development should be counted as an additional cost.
The following steps are involved.

5.1 Determine.What Improvements Are Involved

First, determine if the development will precipitate any msjor
public improvements. See Chapter 2 on Traffic Impacts and Chapter 4
on Public Vacility Impacts. Check with relevant local agencies, and
perhaps with design professionals.

Second, if improvements are required, will they push the pro-
posal's costs far above the current community average? This is
likely where the improvements:

- would not otherwise be built in the foreseeable future;

- would substantially increase the community's current annual
debt service*; and -

- would go beyond the type and scale of improvements now being
paid for by the community (e.g., a new school in a town which hasn't
built a school in 20 years, the establishment of a public sewerage
system, etc.).

If the improvement meets all the above, calculate added debt ser-
vice due to the proposal as follows.

5.2 Estimate Municipal Cost of the Improvements

Municipal cost is the total cost less state or federal aid
less any contributions by the developer. The specific local
agency or design professionals can help estimate costs.

5.3 Determine Mun-icij2al Cost Due to the Proposal

What share of the cost is just for serving the development?
Most new facilities serve other Users as well.

5.4 Calculate Average Year Debt Service Due to the Proposal

The additional principal and interest payments in an average
year** are computed as follows:
Average Year Debt Service = Principal + Princip 1 x Interest
Repayment'Period 2 Rate

(Interest rates now seem to be fluctuating around 7%)'.

*Quickly estimate annual debt service for the,improvement (say 10%
of the municipal cost estimated in Step 5.2). Compare this to the
community's current annual principal and interest payments on all
improvements (from the community's annual report or capital improve-
ments plan). Would the community's debt service increase substan-
tially?
**The average year (when half the principal has been paid off) pro-
vides a long-term estimate of the extra costs.

Note on Bonded Indebtedness. Major public improvements can
also affect the community's bonded indebtedness. Will the improve-
ments make it difficult for the municipality (or a public service
district) to borrow money for other needed facilities? Local offi-
cials who normally deal with bonding and planning capital improve-
ments might:

a. Estimate costs of the required improvements (Steps 5.1
and 5.2 above).

b. Schedule the improvements.

C. Estimate what the principal and interest payments would be
each year; estimate what the outstanding debt would be.

d. Compare these figures -with what is already being planned
(e.g., in an ongoing capital improvements program).

e. Determine if the total level of borrowing would be likely
to impair the community's credit rating and increase interest costs.
(Some common suggestions are keeping net debt less than 10% of
equalized valuations, and keeping annual debt service less than 157o
of the property tax levy).

STEP 6. COMPUTE CHANGE IN THE TAX RATE

The proposal's potential effect on the tax rate is estimated
as follows:

6.1 Determine Annual Fiscal Gain or Loss

Add up all the costs and revenues from the development. The
result is the annual fiscal gain (or loss) due to the proposal.

6.2 Calculate Tax Rate Change

Divide the annual fiscal gain or loss by the combined assessed
value of the community and the proposal*.

If this number is positive (revenues greater than costs), it
shows how much the tax rate would be reduced. If negative (revenues
less than costs), the tax rate would rise by that amount. Table
.3-5 shows a format for estimating tax rate change.

*Where revenues were estimated directly for rental properties
(page 70), assessed value can be quickly determined:
Assessed value of development (in $1,0001s) Revenues
Total Tax Rate

Table 3-5
SAMPLE FORMAT: TAX RATE CHANGE DUETO DEVELOPMENT

Revenues from development .................... $250,000

- School costs .................................. - 230P000

- Non-school costs ............................. - 80,000

+ Change in state aid .......................... + 40,000

Average year debt service for public
improvements (if any required) ............... 0

Total annual fiscal gain or loss ............. 20,000

Assessed value of community plus develop-
ment (in $1,000's) 34,000

EST. CHANGE IN TAX RATE* ..................... $ 0.60 increase

*Where annual fiscal
a@in, this is the potential reduction in the
tax rate; where annual fiscal loss, this is the potential rise
in the tax rate.

For residential developments, it may be valuable to work out'a
table or chart which shows tax rate change for different kinds of
units. Instead of going through the analysis each time a develoD-
ment is proposed, one could look up the result for each proposal's
average assessed value and school.children per unit. Following is
a possible format.

EFFECT OF A 100-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON THE (1.9.72) BOURNE TAX RATE

Type -of Dwelling
Average Assessed Seasonal Year-Round
Value Per of children per unit
Dwelling Unit 0 1 2

$10,000 +$0.04 +$0.23 +$0.65 +$1.04

$20,000 - 0.13 + 0.08 + 0.47 + 0.88

$30,.000. - 0.26 + 0.30 + 0.71

$40,000 - 0.43 - 0.24 + 0.14 + 0.54

$50,000 - 0.57 - 0.39 - 0.02 + 0.38

$60,000 - 0.71 - 0.53 - 0.17 + 0.22

Assessed valuation
per unit needed to
"break even"' $12,500 $25,OOQ $49,000 $74,000

Based on Herr Associates, Guide to the Fiscal Impact of Development,
Bburne Planning Board, revised September 17, 1974,

STEP 7. CONSIDER SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

These effects are often small and elusive. They are usually
not worth detailed study. For some proposals, however, indirect
costs and revenues are significant and should be included in estim-
ating the tax rate'change (Step 6).

7.1 Nearby Property Values

Effects of a proposal on surrounding property values are hard
to predict, may only reflect a transfer in land values from another
part of the community, may not show up in re-assessments for years,
and in the long run may just promote more intensive developnent with
its own service costs. The effect may be relatively clear and sig-
nificant in some casesY however. Local officials and merchants
might agree, for example, that a department store proposed for a
stagnating downtown would stimulate sales of other busi nesses and
push up property values.

Additional tax revenues can be estimated in such a situation:

a. Divide the area around the proposal into a few zones,
using a copy of the assessor's map.

b. For each zone, add up the current taxes on all properties
(from the assessors' commitment sheets).

C. Multiply the current taxes by a reasonable percentage
change for each zone; closer zones will usually show larger changes.

7.2 Spur to Other Development

The likelihood that a major proposal will lead to other devel-
opment in the community is worth considering. A subsidiary activity,
for example, might later be built right by the development, e.g.,
a gas station next to a shopping center. A major employer in a
rural area may increase housing demand by attracting workers to
the region; some may settle in the community*.

In such cases, secondary costs and revenues due to the initial
proposal can be estimated:

a. Guess the type and amount of secondary development.

b. Estimate costs and revenues.

C. Multiply these by the increased probability that the
secondary development will be built in the community (e.g., .60
chance within 5 years if initial proposal is approved minus .20
chance if proposal is rejected).

7.3 Size of Community

As communities grow, their expenditure levels and tax rates
change. A major residential development can thus have a long-term
effect on community costs simply by increasing the population. We
roughly estimate that for Massachusetts communities under 50,000Y
each 1,000 extra people might add a half dollar to the local tax
rate. The effect is therefore quite small for most new develop-
ments**.

*Some secondary fiscal impacts are usually not very significant.
Shopping centers, for example, have little effect on local housing
demand, since they don't usually attractemployees from outside the
region. Major new employers in metropolitan communities probably
have little effect on housing since most workers will probably com-
mute; there may be little in-migration. New housing does lead to
retail development, but the stores may be built outside the com-
munity and the extra-tax revenues may be quite small (often.less
than $30 per new dwelling).
**1,000 people,means about 300 single-family homes or 400 apartments.

86 -

Higher tax rates in large communities may reflect added public
functions (e.g.,'public@sanitation), the:substitution of professional
employees (firemen,.administrators) for volunteers, and extra layers
of administration.

In any event, the most important implications of increased com-
munity size may not be on the local tax rate but on the shift in
demand amo'ng public services, the style and structure of local gov-
ernmentP and the opportunities, diversity and social character of
the community.

CHAPTER 3A

FISCAL IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING

SUMMARY

We have estimated the effects of proposed commercial zoning
near Drum Hill rotary, using methods outlined in the "Fiscal
Impacts" chapter. General findings are as follows:

1. Industrial development (under present zoning) and commer-
cial development (proposed zoning) are both fiscally "profitable"
for the town. Either would pay more in taxes than it would cost
to service, potentially lowering the tax rate.

2. If commercial zoning leads to development of a very large
regional shopping center*, Chelmsford's tax rate might be reduced
by about $1.00 (Table 3A-1).

3. Such development is far from certain. Rezoning could re-
sult in a smaller amount of development, or even in none. As a
result, the "expected value" of tax reduction within 5 years is
considerably less than the maximum possible, perhaps half or
$0.50.

4. Industrial development would have considerably lower fis-
cal benefits, and seems less likely to be realized in the near
future than commercial development on the site.

5. Commercial zoning would therefore have a net fiscal.bene-
fit to.the town, though not nearly as much as the $3.00 tax rate
reduction mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Update**. Our
estimates are lower because we have (a) estimated somewhat lower
assessments, (b) deducted for town costs, and (c) considered
effects on state school aid.. Further refinements are possible but
proba bly would not change the general magnitude of results very
much.

6. Estimates are based on the current state aid formula.
The formula may change but probably not enough to wipe out the
tax benefits of the shopping center.

*Such as. the "ultimate" center proposed by General Growth Develop-
ment ("ImpoTtance of the Mall to the Community", 1975). The smaller
the centerP the less the effect. The "initial" stage proposed for
the site would be about 2/3 the size, and have 2/3 the fiscal
benefits, of the ultimate center.
**William Melia, '!Comprehensive Plan, Phase One", June, 1975.

88 -

Table 3A-1
ESTIMATED TAX RATE CHANGE

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Possible type of7development Industrial Park Regional shop-
ping center

Possible reduction in tax rate $0.26-0.39 $0.88-1.23

Probability of full development
within 5 years 15% 50%

ItExpected value" of reduction
in tax rate (rounded off) $0.05 $0.45-0.60

7. The fiscal benefits of rezoning could be significant.
A $1.00 tax rate reduction means that if your house is assessed at
$30,000, you might save about $30 a year. Tax benefits may not be
overwhelming, however. Other impacts, notably traffic, may be as
or more compelling.

Tax rate change was estimated in the following way.

REVENUES

Revenues are equal to the town's tax rate times the assessed
value of the development as shown in Table 3A-2. Assessments can
easily be estimated since the assessors value manufacturing space
at $8.00 a sq. ft. and commercial space (such as the recent Chelms-
ford Mall) at $12.00 a sq. ft. The estimated $15 million assess-
ment on the shopping center is smaller than the $20 million men-
tioned in the Comprehensive Plan but larger than the $13 million
estimated by the developer.

Our revenue estimates differ from the developer's ("Importance
of the Mall to the Community") in a number of ways. We have:

- included non-leasable as well as leasable area, since it is
also assessed;

- excluded buildings not affected by the rezoning: in Lowell
or on property already commercially zoned;

- assumed $12 a sq. ft. assessed value, not $10 a sq. ft.

- only counted assessment of buildings, not land;

- used the fiscal 1976 tax rate;

Table 3A-2
REVENUES

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Floor area* 550.,000 s.f. 1,260,000 s.f.
x Assessed v alue persq.ft. a $8.00 $12.00

Est. assessed value $4,400YO00 $15,120,000

b
x Chelmsford tax.rate'. $41.50 per $1,000 of assessed value
PROPERTY TAX REVENUES $183,000c. $628,000c

achelmsford assessor's office
bFiscal 1976 total tax rate
cAll revenues and costs in the analysis are rounded off!to the
nearest $1,000.

counted local property tax revenues, not state sales tax
or inventory tax.

NOTE: The shopping center revenues reflect distribution of
buildings on the preliminary site plan. Since the property strad-
dles the Lowell border, fiscal benefits might be considerably
smaller if more of ihe.buildings-were located on the Lowell part
of the site,

SCHOOL COSTS

None, under current or proposed zoning.

NON-SCHOOL COSTS

Commercial and industrial development does impose some town
service costs: e.g., for fire protection, police protection,
police traffic duties, highway maintenance, inspections, hearings,
other administrative functions. We don't know of a simple and
reliable way to,assign these costs to a particular development.
Instead, we have assumed that non-school costs are a certain per-
centage of non-school revenues from the development. We have used
a wide range,, from 30% to 70%, reflecting findings of earlier
studies. Estimates are shown in Table 3A-3.

Other assumptions could be made, but final conclusions aren't
very sensitive to this factor. The low estimate, for example, sug-
gests commercial zoning would probably reduce the tax rate by about
$0.65. The high cost estimate (which is more than twice as high)
only changes this to $0.45 (Table 3Aol).*

Table 3A-3
NON-SCHOOL COSTS

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Assessed value $4,400,000

,x General Tax Rate (non-school
tax rate) $16.42 per $1,000 of assessed value

Non-school revenues $72,000 $248,000

Low High Low High

x Costs as % of revenues 30% 7076 30% 70%

- EST. NON-SCHOOL COSTS $22,000 $55,000 $74,000 $174,000

STATE-SCHOOL-.,-'AID

Any new development will change the amount of Chapter 70.school
aid the town receives. New commere-ial or industrial development.
adds to the tax base, but doesn't add any school children. Under
the present Ch. 70, this extra value per child means less state aid.

Table 3A-4 shows the loss in state aid from development on the
site. Note that these amounts are.very substantial, and are the
single largest cost of development.

MAJOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

Street Improvements.

A regional shopping center could double traffic on nearby roads.
Major street improvements might be needed to deal with increased
congestion. The town is responsible for improvements on Drum Hill
Road (North Road and the rotary are state highways). As a quick
estimate, we've assumed the town might have to spend $150,000*, per-
haps including:

- $25,000 for a signal at the egress on Drum Hill Road;

- $80,000 for improvements and possible widening along Drum
Hill Road (1,600 feet x $50 per linear foot);

*In practice, the town may use Chapter 90 state highway aid for
Drum Hill Road improvements. However, the town gets a limited
amount of money from the state each year. State aid used at Drum
Hill means less aid at other locations in the town. Thetown's net
costs therefore aren't affected by Ch. 90 arrangements at the site.

- 91 -

Table 3A-4
STATE,SCHOOL AID LOSS

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Assessed value of development $4,400,000' $15,120,000
i Current assessed value'of
communitya $265,864,000 $265,864,000@

% increase in assessed value 1.7% 5.7%

x Multiplier from Table 3-4,
"Fiscal Impactsitb 1.0 1.0

% loss in school aid 1.7% 5.7%
x Current school a@idc $3,375,000 $3,375,000
1
EST. LOSS IN SCHOOL AID $57 ,000 $192,000

aReal plus personal property
bCurrent school aid percentage is 50.6, say 50
cFiscal 1976 Cherry Sheet

$45,000 for contingencies, such as land purchases 'and minor
improvements along Parkhurst Road if needed.

This would not include $70,000 worth of improvements already recom-
mended for the area to serve existing traffic (better signs, pave-
ment marking, flashing beacons, etc.)*.

If improvements cost $150,000, have a 15 year life span, and a.
7% interest rate, average year debt service might be $15,000:

Average Year Debt Service Principal + Principal x
Repayment Period 2

Interest Rate

$150 000 + $150 000 x 0.7

$10,000 + $5,250

$15,250

say $15,000

This is a relatively small number in the fiscal analysis. Re-
view of the site plan by the Superintendent of Streets could improve
its accuracy. However, even if costs were $300,000, double what
VeTve assumed, the tax rate reduction would only be about $0.05
smaller (say, $0.95,instead of $1.00).

Industrial development does not seem likely to precipitate
major street improvements; its daily traffic would be about 1/10
that of the shopping center.

Other Improvements

We don't foresee other major improvements likely to affect the
town tax rate:

a. Water. The North District has its own financing system
and charges customers for service. Development On the site may
well aggravate problems and accelerate the timing of improvements**.
we assume, though, that charges to the development.can offset its
share of improvement costs.

b. Sewerage. If a municipal system were established, taxes
and/or fees would be assessed on properties. There is no reason
to assume that development on this property won't pay its way.

*Arenivide T.O.P.I.C.S. Plan, 1972.
**"Public Facility Impacts of Drum Hill Rezoning".

INDIRECT IMPACTS

Concern has been expressed that a regional shopping center will
11captur el' sales and as a result eventually reduce tax revenues from
existing Chelmsford stores or future ones which would otherwise have
been built. This will.6ertainly happen to some extent. However, the
loss is less than one might expect and may be roughly offset by in-
creased sales at other stores in the Drum Hill area.(see "Economic
Impacts of Drum Hill Rezoning").

In terms of tax revenue, we have assumed that these effects
balance out. Other assumptions are possible. In the worst possible
case (no induced sales at Drum Hill), net tax benefits would be
about 80% of those shown in Table 3A-1. A regional shopping center
might then mean about an $0.80 tax rate reduction instead of $1.00.

Of course, the shift in sales may be a very important concern
on non-fiscal grounds, such as the vitality of present commercial
areas and the effect on current store owners.

CHANGE IN TAX RATE

Table 3A-5 shows how all these costs and revenues might affect
the town tax rate. If an industrial park had already been built,
this year's tax rate might have been reduced $0.30 or:$0.40. A
regio nal shopping center could have reduced the tax rate 3 times
as much.

EXPECTED TAX RATE CHANGE

Zoning doesn't guarantee development. Tax rate change depends
on site development, but development may not happen, may not happen
for many years, or may not happen on the scale that we've described.
Change expected in 5 years is based on assumptions about probability
of development under c'urrent and proposed zoning (see Appendix to
"Ipipact Summary: Drum Hill Rezoning"). Considering the probabili-
ties of industrial and shopping center development, the "expected"
tax rate change in five years is-a reduction of $0.05 if industrial
zoning is retained, or about $0.50 if rezoning to allow a shopping
center is approved.

Table 3A-5
TAX RATE CHANGE, IF FULL DEVELOPMENT

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Revenues $183,000 $628,000

- School Costs 0 0

- Non-School Costs 22.9000-55,000 74,000-174,000

- State School Aid Loss .57;000 000

- Street Improvements (average
year debt service) @0 15pOOO

TOTAL-ANNUAL FISCAL GAIN $71,000-104,000 $247,000-347,000
Assessed Value of Community 000a b
+ Development (in.$1,000's) $270, $281,000

EST. TAX RATE REDUCTION $0.26-0.39 $0.88-1.23

a$265,864(000) community + $4,400(000) development
b$265,864(000) community + $15,120(000) development

CHAPTER 4

PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACTS

This chapter deals with impacts on major public facilities,
such as the need for a new school or wellfield. Street improvements
are dealt with separately (Traffic Impacts chapter). Normal agency
operations (personnel, assignments) are dealt with in this guidebook
in the way that they are reflected in the tax rate (Fiscal Impacts
chapter).

New development normally increases pressure on public facili-
ties. The proposal may substantially increase water use, sewage
flowsl storm water runoff, number of school children. Where the
new demand passes or brings nearer a "break point", major capital
improvements may be required. Sometimesexpanding demand is not'
responded to by expanding facilities, but in that case, too, a
price is paid: more crowded facilities, less efficient operations,
reduced services, perhaps higher insurance rates (e.g., fire in-
surance). Thus, it is possible to speak about potential demand.
resulting from growth, whether responded to by co nstIruction or not.

Following are common concerns about new development.

1. Will the development require (immediately or eventually)
a type of public service not now provided in the area (such as
public water, public sewerage)?

2. Will development overload capacity of existing facilities,
or make it hard1to accommodate other expected growth?

3. Will major capital improvements be needed, such as addi-
tions, extensions, new facilities?

4. Some of the improvements may be needed or already planned
regardless of the. development. Will the proposal accelerate their
timing or increase their scale (and cost)?

5. Are there likely to be serious time lags before the pro-
posed development can be adequately serviced? This may suggest
phasing the development.

6. Are there likely to be problems borrowing for the improve-
ments? Large-scale borrowing may be difficult or impossible for
small communities or service districts.

7. Will there be,long-term fiscal effects? The development's
share of debt service costs can be estimated. If the facility is
provided by the municipal government, debt service can be compared
with revenues (and other costs) from the development (see "Fiscal
Impacts", p. 83).

96 -

As with other impacts, the facility consequences of the proposal
should be compared with those of possible development if the proposal
is rejected. Net difference may sometimes be slight, sometimes a
question of which year the improvements will be needed.

Experts

In evaluating facility impacts, the impact analyst must depend
upon a variety of experts. It is important to understand that "need"
is not often objectively determinable, and that the expert's role
naturally colors his perception of need. Beware: treat expert
input with some skepticism. Some common role influences:

The elected or senior appointed facility manager: He will
often minimize limitations of facilities he is responsible for,
since doing otherwise reflects on the job he has been doing.
Exception: the new manager of "inherited" facilities, which he'll
often find grossly inadequate.

The professional facility designer: Engineers and architects
generally use very conservative assumptions when evaluating facili-
ties. This reflects both a general concern not to under-design
facilities and also the general orientation (and self-interest)
of the profession toward building newer, bigger and better facili-
ties. If the professional designer finds a facility adequate, it
probably really is. If he finds facilities inadequate and in need
of expansion or replacement, it is often valuable to review his
assumptions.

The national organization. Librarians, policemen, firemen,
recreationists, and others all have their state, regional, or
national standard-setting organizations. The dynamics of these
organizations is clear: their "standards" are seldom "norms",
really being "goals". That's fine if understood.

1. SCHOOL FACILITIES

To estimate impact on.need for school facilities, the follow-
ing steps are required.

a. Estimate enrollment from the development for selected
future years, by grade grouping: elementary, junior high, senior
high. In the fiscal impacts chapter, we outlined how to estimate
total school enrollment resulting from development (pages 71-73).
Allocating estimated enrollment among grade groupings is even more
uncertainty-prone than the basic estimate. We do not find national
or other local studies useful for this, but instead suggest allocat-
ing students to grade levels based on local experience.. For example,
suppose that a development is estimated to add 400 children to the
schools when fully developed. If 60% of all current local enroll-
ments are in grades K-6, a reasonable first approximation is that
60% of these 400 children will also be in grades K-6, or 240

children in those grades. Enrollment impact should be estimated for
selected years based on the phasing schedule of the development (see
page 143). The total enrollment figure will only be reached when
the development is fully occupied.

b. Allocate those enrollments to existing or committed future
facilities, based on school district lines. For example, the pro-
posed project might be served by two school districts. Half of the
students, or 120, might be allocated to each.

c. Estimate future enrollment inthe affected schools each
year, ignoring the proposed development. The school department may
already have made a detailed projection. The Bureau of Research
and Assessment, Mass. Department of Education, has made projections
by grade groupings for each school system in the state*. Upon re-
quest they will project enrollments by district within the school
system; simply provide them with district enrollments by grade for
the last 10 years.

d. Add enrollment each year from the proposed development to
that expected anyway. For example:

Projected District
School Enrollment Projected Enrollment
Year Without Develo_pment From Development Total

1977 640 30 670
1978 650 60 710
1979 640 90 730
1980 630 120 750
1985 580 120 700
1990 580 120 700

e. Evaluate the results. Does the total ever exceed current
levels? Given falling birth rates, it might not. Does it ever
exceed the School Department's suggested capacity for the school?
If soy by how much, and for how long? If overcapacity results, can
it be resolved by redistricting, or will more heroic efforts be
required, such as double sessions or a new building or building
addition?

2. RECREATION FACILITIES

In assessing consequences of residential development on rec-
reation facilities, the following should be considered:

a. Determine what facilities the development itself is going
to provide. Many, especially clustered developments, internally
-provide facilities completely satisfying some recreational demands,
such as for tennis.

*Department of Education, Bureau of Research and Assessment,
"Enrollment Projections for Public Schools in Massachusetts, 1975-
1979", October, 1975.

b. Ask whether those who operate local recreation programs
consider that recreation programs are now constrained by lack of
adequate facilities-(rather than, say, lack of staff or other
problems).
c. Assess whether it is likely that the added recreational
demands will be satisfied incidental to satisfying school needs.
The site standards of the School Building Assistance Bureau result
in adding one acre per 100 added pupils. Well managed, this spa ' ce
may be all the recreation space that a community need add as it
grows.

d. Check quantitatively. Standards keep rising, but about 5
nearby acres of recreation space per 1,000 residents is not un-
reasonable for communities with less than 50,000 population*. This
means that each added 100 residents may create a need for another
half-acre of recreation space. A simpler and perhaps more reliable
rule is that adding recreation space in direct proportion to pop-
ulation growth would probably, in most cases, more than keep pace
with added demand:

Added space justified = Population in proposed devel. x
Turrent population of community

Recreation acres now in use

e. Assess impact on special facilities or programs. Impact
can be.good or bad. Swimming might be made overcrowded, or it
might be made,ju8tifiable for the first time.

3_,:i, F WA TER

Followidg-are some key impacts to watch out for.

a. Need for a Public Water System. If there is now no public
water system in the area, will the development accelerate the time
when one is needed? Population growth makes public water supply.
more likely. This may mean creation of a new water district or
expansion of an existing district (either step requires state
legislation). Table 4-1 shows expectations of public.water systems
for residential areas.

b. Pollution. Would proposed development pollute water sup-
plies -by changing drainage patterns, increasing run-off and sedi-
mentation, discharging wastes, or placing a sewage disposal system
near wellfields or surface water bodies**? The result may be

*National Recreation and Park Association, "Outdoor Recreation Space
Standards", New York, 1965.
**Article XI, State Sanitary Code requires a 100 ft. setback from a
septic tank or leaching field to any municipal water supply., This
is a general statewide standard and may not always be adequate to
prevent pollution.

Table 4-1
LIKELIHOOD OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM

Population Density Equivalent Likelihood of Eventual
Persons/Sq. Mile Lot Sizea Public Water System

over 2,500 less than nearly certain
1 acre

IS000-2f500 1-2 acres eventually in most cases

500-1,000 2-4 acres unlikely

less than 500 over 4 acres virtually never
aif fully developed

Source: U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., Public Health Service, Environmental
Health Planning Guide, 1962.

lower water quality, requiring some form of treatment or, conceiv-
ably, need for another water supply.

C. Effect on Water Level. If the development has its own
wells, will it reduce groundwater level in surrounding areas,
possibly affecting 'public wellfields?

d. Need for Public Improvements. If the development will
use the public system, will it require major improvements in that
system? Improvements might include:

(1) New water mains. Existing mains may have to be ex-
tended a considerable distance to the site. Nearby mains may have
to be replaced by larger ones or supplemented in order to provide
adequate pressure for fire fighting. Check with water officials
and the fire chief. (A major apartment complex, for example, might
need 1211 mains rather than the present 611 or 811 mains in the area.)
Arrangements often provide for the developer to pay part or all of
the cost for the new mains.

(2) Additional storage capacity. Larger storage facilities
may be needed to provide adequate reserves for peak demand plus
fire fighting. Standpipes and water tanks may have to be built or
expanded; insurance rates go up if underwriters believe reserves
are inadequate. Concern may,be greatest for very large new devel-
opments (such as an industrial park) which increase needed fire
flows in the community*.

*See Insurance Services Office, "Guide for Determination-of Required
Fire Flow", New York, 1974.

100

(3).Additional supplies. Extra demand from the development
may exceed the capacity of existing water supplies. This can some-
times be readily dealt with by increasing pumping capacity or tap-
ping another known groundwater or surface water source. If these
solutions aren't available, consequences may be much more serious.
Search for a new source may prove fruitless. Water may have to be
purchased from elsewhere (e.g., from another district ifi the com-
munity, a nearby city or town, the M.D.C.). It often takes years
to find and develop a new source or to work out arrangements with
another district; water shortages may occur in the meantime. By
contrast, new mains, standpipes, pumps are costly but relatively
straightforward improvements.

Where impacts may be significant, the proposal should be care-
fully reviewed by the Water Commissioners (or department) and/or
by outside engineers (provided by the developer or the community).
Following is a quick general approach for considering how proposal
water use might affect public water supplies.

3.1 Review Existing Conditions and Plans

Water system records, personnel, and engineering studies may
indicate:

- water use on the average and maximum days during the year
(maximum, rather than average, demand is sometimes the more import-
ant design criterion);

- supply capacity: how many gallons can be pumped on a
single day;

how current use compares with capacity; proposal impact
will naturally be much more critical if the system is already close
to capacity;

- problems that have already been identified;

- improvements that are already planned or underway.

3.2 Estimate Water Use for the Proposed Development

How many gallons would be needed on the maximum day?

a. Residential Development. Residential water serves two
main purposes: household use and sprinkling. Household consump-
tion often averages about 250 gallons per dwelling per day*.-
Sprinkling varies widely, depending on the size of the lawn. In

*F.P. Linaweaver,,John Geyer and Jerome Wolff, "A Study of Resi-
dential Water Use", for Federal Housing Administration, 1967.

- 101

an apartment complex only 100 gallons per dwelling might go to
sprinkling. In a I-acre or 2-acre area, sprinkling might reach
1,000 or 2,000 gallons per dwelling on the maximum day*. Impli-
cations:

(1) One can roughly estimate water use per dwelling. If
proposed densities aren't very different from existing densities
in the community, look at current water records for the system:

Max. Day Use per Dwelling Unit = Total Residential Use on Max. Day
of Residential Connections

Be careful to count only residential uses; don't count stores and
factories**.

For a rough estimate, maximum day use is often about 400-800
gallons per dwelling (low for apartments, high for single-family
homes)***.

(2) Increasing residential density does not always increase
maximum day water use. This is the surprising finding of a nation-
wide study****.. Water use per acre may not change very much whether
there are, say, 1 unit or 5 units per acre, since total lawn area
remains about the same. It may therefore sometimes be useful to
estimate water use per acre (total current residential use resi-
dential acres).

At still higher densities (especially more than 10 units per
acre), water use clearly does increase with increasing density.
Household consumption for each extra unit is greater than reduced
sprinkling from reduced lawn area.

b. Non-Residential Development. Water use varies enormously
by type of development, depending on needs for employees$ visitors,
and industrial processes. Examples (for illustrative purposes, some
data is quite old):

*Source: Richard Bond and Conrad Straub, ed., CRC Handbook of
Environmental Control, Vol. 11, Water Supply and Treatment, 1972.
**Some per capita figures are based on all water use divided by pop-
..ulation. The result can be misleading if there are large commer-
cial or industrial users in the community.
***Assumes maximum day is about double the average day, about 2.5-4.0
persons per dwelling, and 60-100 gallons per capita on an average
day. See: estimates of Mass. Department of Public Health; Real
Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl, for U.S. Council
on Environmental Quality, 1974,' Linaweaver, Residential Water Use
****Lijaaweaver'

102

Rough est., gallons per day
Land Use per employee*

office 15
shopping,center 30
printing 300
chemicals manufacturing 21000
paper manufacturing 21,000

Even for the same type of development, water use may vary widely
among individual establishments. Restaurants, for example, may
generally average 35 gallons per seat per day, but counter seats
in a turnpike rest area might generate 10 times as much**.

Each non-residential development should therefore be reziewed
in terms of its particular characteristics. The developer may be
asked to provide an estimate of daily water use. One can also look
at similar establishments elsewhere.

3.3 Compare the Development to Current Water Use and Capacity

Does the development substantially increase water use in the
district? Will existing supplies be adequate to meet the extra
demand? Even if the development won't exceed existing capacity,
it may still cause problems: making it hard to deal with major
fires and to accommodate other expected development and rising
demand from present users (perhaps increasing about 1% per year***).

3.4 Consider What Improvements May Be Needed

Ask those in charge of the water system. Issues can include
timing, cost, and complexity of arrangements.

4. SEWERAGE

Concerns vary, depending on whether the development will pro-
vide its own sewage disposal or be served by a public system.

*Total water consumption for all purposes divided by number of
employees; Bond and Straub; Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater
Engineering: Collection, Treatment Disposal; Herr Associates
estimate for shopping centers based on water records for Burling-
ton Mall, South Shoreand North Shore Shopping Plazas.
**Metcalf and Eddy, Waterwater.Engineering.
***New England River Basins Commission, How to Guide Growth in South-
eastern New England, May, 1975.

io3

4.1 Private Disposal

What degree of assurance is there that the system will prove
adequate not only initially, but in the long run? Initial adequacy
can be assured by capable administration of the State Sanitary Code
and Board of Health regulations. Long-term adequacy is far more
complex, since initially adequate systems often, in time, prove
troublesome, leading to eventual provision of public sewerage.
Expectations for residential development are as follows:

Table 41,,2'
LIKELIHOOD OF PUBLIC SEWERAGE

Population Density Equivalent Lik6lihood of Eventual
Pi@is''66ilSq. Mi. Lot Size Public Sewerage
Over 5.,000 Under i acre Nearly certain eventually

2,500-5,000 to I acre Eventually in most cases
2

1,000-2.,500 1 to 2 acres Unlikely

Less than 1,000 Over 2 acres Virtually none

Source: U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., Public Health Service, Environmental
Health Planning Guide, 1962.

Poor soils, steep topography, high water table, or proximity
to critical waterbodies increase likelihood of eventual sewerage;
good soils, flat land, and deep water table reduce likelihood.
There are lots of exceptions. A recent soil survey by the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service can provide valuable information.

The Planners Handbook contains a table relating soils, lot
size, and other site cong"l-derations*. If the proposed development
Violates the standards of that table, skepticism about long-term
adequacy is well justified, percolation tests notwithstanding.

4.2 Municipal System

If the development is likely to be served by the municipal
sewerage system, several questions follow.

a. Is there adequate trunkline capacity to serve the develop-
ment? The question should be answered by a technician, but if prob-
lems already exist, or if the development is only a tiny fraction of
the current total load served by the line in question, the answer
may be obvious, one way or the other. Ask those in charge of the
sewerage system.

*Massachusetts Federation of Planning Board, Planners Handbook
Braintree, MA, Revised 1975.

- 104

b. Is there adequate treatment plant capacity to serve the
development? Again the question requires technical response, but
again the answer may be obvious. Ask those in charge.

Sometimes capacity inadequacy can be remedied by relatively
inexpensive actions such as blocking stormwater infiltration to
reduce peak flows. On the other hand, sometimes a relatively small
increment in sewage flows is the last straw, precipitating major
system additions. Again, lay judgment is difficult.

5. STORM DRAINAGE

Development replaces soft absorbent surfaces with hard imper-
vious ones, and often replaces slow over-ground runoff routes with
rapidly-flowing piped underground ones. The result is that storm
water gets to the bottom of hills or into streams faster, increasing
peak flows (and often reducing off-peak flows since less water is
held back to flow later). The public facility impact is that @
storm drainage facilities such as storm sewers or culverts down-
stream of a development may prove inadequate and require expensive
replacement.

Modern design and management techniques can virtually eliminate
the problem. In many locations, it is feasible to insist upon
development design to avoid peak flow increases through use of
recharge, roof storage, parking area storage, and grassed ponding
areas*.

Further, initial design of downstream facilities can be based
upon the estimated flows given full development uphill, rather than
assuming uphill areas will remain undeveloped.

If regulations and earlier design practices didn't follow this
approach, developmentis likely to add to peak runoff. The com-
putations for runoff are complex. To get a "ballpark" sense, the
following "runoff multipliers" might be considered.

Developed for single-family lots, runoff = 2 times undeveloped
runoff rate.

Developed for multi-family units., runoff = 3 times undeveloped
runoff rate.
rate. Developed for business, runoff = 4 times undeveloped runoff

The impact on the total drainage catchment area involved can
be crudely estimated as:

*Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and
National Association of Home Builders, Residential Storm Water
Management, 1975.

105

Area of proposed development x runoff multiplier x 100
Area of total drainage catchment area

% increase in runoff

For example, 100 acres of undeveloped land are proposed for
multi-family use. It is part of a 1,500 acre drainage basin served
by a critical road culvert.

100 acres x 3 x 100 = 20% increase in runoff
1,500 acres

If the increase looks critical, have it analyzed by a profes-
sional. There is much more than shown here: the increase in
peak flow may be either a,great deal more or a great deal less
than 20%.

6. SOLID WASTE

Two "break points" are involved in solid waste: the point at
which pickups begin, and the point at which the disposal facility
is overtaxed (incinerator) or exhausted (landfill).

6.1 Collection

Justification for collection service in.relation to density
is shown in the following.

Table 4-3
JUSTIFICATION FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

Population,Dens,ity Equivalent Economic Justification
(Persons/Sq.-Mi-) Lot Size for Collection Service

Over 2,500 less than 1 acre Service justified
1,000 to 2,500 1-2 acres Servic6. normally justified
500 to 1,000 2-4 ac-res Service seldom justified
Under 500 over 4,acres Service rarely justified

Source: U.S. Public Health Service, Environmental Health Planning
Guide.

By calculating the difference in density which a proposed
development makes, one can estimate the degree to which it accel-
erates the time when collection service will be required-

6.2 Disposal

Nationwide, the rate of solid waste generation had been rising
for many years until stabilizing in the past few years at about 0.6
tons per resident per year. Residents of motels, universities, and
other institutions generate waste at about one third that rate, or
0.2 tons per resident per year. For businesses, the following is
an approximation.

- 106

Table 4-4
SOLID WASTE GENERATED BY BUSINESSES
Tons per empl5yee per year

Off ices 0.4
Textile, apparel manufacturing 0.7
Transportation, communication, utilities 1
Metal, machinery manufacturing 1
Printing, publishing 4
Chemical, plastic manufacturing 7
Paper manufacturing 9
Food processing 10
Wood products, furniture 15

Source: adapted from Raytheon Service Co., Solid Waste Management
Study Report, for Mass. Dept. of Public Works, 1972.

The remaining capacity per day for a local incinerator or
total remaining capacity for a landfill can normally be estimated
by the operating agency. Using these multipliers, one can estimate
the extent to which a proposed development-will draw on that
capacity.

7. OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES

As communities grow, pressure on a broad range of community
facilities grows. First, more people simply means more people
having business at 'town offices, borrowing books at the library,
and having homes needing fire protection. Second, service-levell
expectation's are higher for larger communities. Inconveniences
or lack of amenities accepted in a rural community cease to be
acceptable as the community grows. Third, better facilities
generate greater usage. A municipal library may attract few users,
but per capita usage may grow enormously as facilities improve.

Often the chaft ge is subtle and gradual, as when the same town
office.building which served a.town of 6,000 continues to serve it
at 15,000, but does so by virtue of a series of displacements over
time: having moved the town meeting to the school auditorium,
police to a separate police station, public works to a separate
building, and the welfare department to an adjacent town.

Development demand for several types of facilities ar e dis-
cussed below.

7.1 Libraries

The American Library Association suggests a library floor
space.standard of about 0.7 square feet per capita for communities

107

under 501,000 residents*. We-find few communities which meet that
standard, but it probably is a fair measure of growing demand.
Thus, a development bringing 1,000 new residents brings demand fo.-
about 700 square feet of library space.

.7.2 Office Space

By observation, we judge that demand for floor space for town
offices and police headquarters also grows by about three-quarters
square foot per capita.

7.3 Fire Protection Facilities

Demand for fire protection facilities in communities of under
50,000 largely depends on the pattern of development. Insurance
rates depend, among other things,upon proximity to fire stations.
A usual standard for promixity is:

Table 4-5
PROXIMITY OF FIRE STATIONS

Engine, Hose or
Engine-Ladder Co. Ladder Co.

Commerce, Industry
Dense 3/4 mile 1 mile
Other li 2

Residential
Multi-Family li 2
Lots smaller than 1 acre 2 3
Lots larger than I acre 4 4

Adapted from American Insurance Association (National Board of Fire
Underwriters), "Fire Department Standards - Distribution of Companies
and Response to Alarms", Special Interest Bulletin No. 315, January,
1963.

Buildings with dimensions, either horizontal or vertical,
much greater than others in the community can precipitate demand
for fire fighting equipment not otherwise available or required.
The equipment, in turn, can require types of garage space not now
available. Check with the fire chief: this could be an expensive
and unanticipated impact.

*American Library Association, Public Library Association, "Interim
Standards for Small Public Libraries: Guidelines Toward-Achieving
Guals of Public Library Service". Chicago, 1962.

108

CHAPTER 4A

PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING

SUMMARY

Facility requirements attributable to the Drum Hill shopping
center are. few and not demanding. The center may require some water
system improvements, especially larger mains in the Drum Hill area,
but we don't foresee the heed for other major public improvements
(except for traffic improvements, which would be extensive and are
discussed separately in "Traffic Impacts of Drum Hill Rezoning").

Public facility needs for industrial development can't be pre-
dicted without a specific development proposal. We don't know of any
inherent, critical problems, however.

Potential water and sewer impacts are discussed below.

WATER

Proposed Zoning

A regional shopping center might use 80,000 gallons on an
average day, 100,000 gallons on a summer day*. The developer has
indicated that water will not be used for air conditioning (which
ifused could further increase demand to, say, 150,000 gallons per
day in the summer).

We assume that water would be provided by the North Chelmsf *ord
District (other possibilities: a single town-wide water system or
use of the nearby Lowell system). Issues include:

a. Distribution System. The site is now serviced by 611 and
811 mains. A 121, main may be needed from Richardson Road in order to
provide adequate fire protection and water pressure. Cost might be
roughly $50,000 ($30 per foot). The North Chelmsford district anti-
cipates that the developer would pay some of this cost; his fire
insurance ratings relate to water adequacy at the site. The water
consolidation study suggested the need for such a main, even
without development on the site**.

*Based.on discussion with the developer and water records for
Burlington Mall and North Shore Shopping Plaza.
**Weston & Sampson, Report to Water District Consolidation Committee,
Chelmsford, Ma., February, 1975.

109

b. Supply., The North Chelmsford Water District system capa-
city is now about 1.8 million gallons,.a day*. In 1974, maximum use
was, about I million gallons a day**. The center might increase
maximum use to about 60% of capacity. This isn't likely to cause
immediate problems, according to the North Chelmsford Water District.
In the long run, the center might accelerate the time when the Dis-
trict needs additional water supply, perhaps by a year or two***.

C. Storage. The district now has 2.2 million gallons storage
capacity, which it considers adequate. Weston & Sampson recommend
an additional 1 million gallon storage facility by 1980 to provide
for population growth and fire emergencies****.

The shopping center does not seem likely to be a key factor
in planning for new storage facilities since (a) its required fire
flows probably do not exceed the maximum already needed in the
district*****, and (b) choice of assumptions about future popula-
tion growth and residential water use appear to be more critical
in deciding on storage needs.

If districts are consolidated, new connecting mains to the
Center district could substitute for new storage facilities.*

Current Zoning

Industrial development on the site would also probably require
larger water mains in order to provide fire protection.

Storage and supply needs depend on the particular type of
industry. Clothing manufacturing and research and development com-
panies use relatively little water; food processors, chemical plants,
breweries use a great deal. It seems unlikely, however, that very
-heavy water users would choose to locate where water supply is quite
limited.

*Weston & Sampson, Report to Water Dist rict Consolidation Committee,
Chelmsford, Ma._, February, 1975'
**Water Commissioners of the North Chelmsford District, 1169th Annual
Report,'for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975".
*.*.*It is not clear when additional supplies will be needed. Mr.
McEnany, chairman of the district commissioners, doesn't foresee
supply problems in the near future. Weston & Sampson are more
pessimistic, assuming rapid population growth and high water con-
sumption. If Weston & Sampson,are right, additional supplies might
be needed by 1985; the shopping center would, however, be equi-
valent to just one year's anticipated growth in the district. What-
ever the assumptions, the shopping center will probably not be a
critical factor
****Est. cost $475,60o.
*****Weston & Sampson based storage needs on fire flows for the Princeton
St.-Foundry St. industrial area: 4,000 gallons per minute for 10
hours. (Insurance Service Office standards have since changed,
generally reducing duration but increasing flow per minute.) As
a rough estimate, the center might require 3,000 gallons @er
rhinute for 3 hours.

110

SEWERAGE

Proposed Zoning

The shopping center might generate 70,000-80,000 gallons of
sewage per day (roughly the same as annual average water use). How
will this be disposed of? It is unclear whether, when, and in what
form Chelmsford will provide a public sewerage system*., Thb.,shbp-
ping center is therefore likely to either:

1. provide its own on-site sewage treatment plant; or

2. tie into the Lowell sewer system; the Northern Middlesex
Area Commission has suggested Lowell sewerage for the rotary area**.

In either case, the center wouldn't require public facility
improvements in Chelmsford.

We don't think the center would be a key factor in pushing the
town toward municipal sewerage. The center would increase total town
sewage flows by less than 5%***. Federal orders and funding, re-
gional arrangementsi overall population density, and local prefer-
ences are far more important in determining sewerage plans.

Current Zoning

Industrial development is also likely to use the Lowell sewer
system or provide its own on-site systems. Sewage flows vary by
type of industry and can't be predicted without a specific develop-
ment proposal (sewage flows roughly correspond to water usage).
We don't foresee any special problems at this location compared
with other industrial sites in town.

*Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Chelmsford Liquid Waste
Study for Chelmsford Sewer-Commission, 1974.
**Northern Middlesex Area Commission, "Preferred Long-Range Sewer
and Water Plan", 1972.
***Sewage flows in the town are at least 2 million gallons a day
(average daily water use is 3.2 million gallons according to
Weston & Sampson).

CHAPTER 5

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Proposed development may significantly affect jobs and busi-
nesses. These economic impacts are the subject of this chapter.
Effects on municipal finances are dealt with separately in the
chapter on Fiscal Impacts.

Following are general considerations in evaluating economic
impacts:

Relation to Community Nee ds. How will the proposal affect the
community's particular needs and resources? More jobs may be good,
may be bad. Low-skilled or seasonal jobs may be desirable some
places, undesirable elsewhere. Needs have already been identified
in many communities by Overall Economic Development Programs (OEDP's),
Master Plans, industrial development agencies, regional planning
agencies, or local business groups. Such plans and organizations
can be very valuable in evaluating new development.

Variety of Impacts. The number of new jobs may be the single
most dramatic economic impact of a proposal. There are often other
significant impacts, however, which should not be overlooked, such
as the type of jobs and the effects on existing businesses.

Who is Affected? Will the proposal affect,.,current residents
or only affect future characteristics of the community (e.g., by
affecting people who now live elsewhere but may move into or com-
mute to the community)? A new high-technology r&d plant, for example,
might bring highly-trained, highly-paid professionals into a town,
thereby raising the average incomes and skill levels of residents
of the town, but leaving the previous residents of the town no better
off than before. Effects on current residents and on the overall
future of the community may both be important. They,are not identi-
cal, however, and should be distinguished.

What Happens if the Proposal is Rejected? If the proposed
development is designed to serve purely local needs (a small drug-
store, professional office building, barber shop), rejecting the
development on one site in the community will almost certainly mean
that the same jobs, taxes, and activities will instead occur on an
alternative site in the same community. Thus, a decision to allow
or deny such a development on any given site almost certainly has
no economic impact, even though the development involves income,
jobs, and taxes.

Other developments'are tied not to the community, but to the
region. Denied at one location, a major shopping center, a regional
insurance office, or an industry drawing on special regional re-

112

sources will almost certainly be built on an alternative site in
the same region, but perhaps not in the same community. Taxes will
be lost to the community, but jobs and services provided will only
be moved, perhaps to a location still well within commuting range
of that community's labor force. Decisions to deny such develop-
ments certainly have economic impact, though that impact may be
only partial.

Finally, there are "foot-loose" activities which are not tied
to the region at all: if not' developed at a proposed site, all of
their economic benefits will possibly be lost. Good examples are
major power plants, government facilities such as the much-sought
solar energy lab, and home offices of national corporations.

Impacts are discussed separately for non-residential and resi-
dential development.

1. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

New factories, stores, institutions can affect the local
economy in a number of ways. Concerns vary from one community to
another, but common questions about proposed development might
include:

1. Employment

a. How many jobs will be created, including construction
and permanent jobs?

b. Will the firms hire locally or bring workers from other
parts of the state or country?

C. Would development substantially increase the number of
jobs within commuting range of local residents?

d. What kind of jobs will be created? Do they meet needs
of local residents?

2. Business Opportunities

a. Would the new uses compete for sales with exist ing local
businesses? Are failures and vacancies likely?

b. Would existing commercial areas be strengthened and
supporied?

C. Are the new activities likely to buy goods and services
from local businesses?

d. Would the development provide space for local entrepreneurs?

113

3. Other Effects

a. Would goods or services be "exported" to other parts of the
state or country, bringing outside income into the area?

b. Would new acttvities diversify the economy?

c. What would be the effect on nearby property values?

d. Would there be other important indirect effects?

These issues are discussed briefly below.

1.1 Employment

A. Number of Jobs. The developer may estimate the number of
7 following rough estimates
construction and ermanent jobs, or the
may be used.

(1) Construction Jobs. Each million dollars of construction
may mean about 30 man-years of labor on the site*. Man-years are
a good general measure, although they are of course split among
many craftsmen each working for a short period of time. Construc-
tion costs (excluding financing, land, architects) may.be obtained
from the developer. Table 5-1 shows some rough cost estimates and
the number of construction jobs that might be required for each
1,000 square feet of floor area.

(2) Permanent Jobs in the Development. Table 5-2 shows
how many square feet there might be per employee. Offices, for
example, have about 200 s.f. per employee. A 200,000 s.f. office
building might thus have about 1,000 workers.

(3) Indirect Jobs. New development indirectly creates
other jobs elsewhere in the economy as supplies are purchased and
workers spend thei-r wages. But these effects are hard to measure
and may be small lor a local area (purchases tend to "leak out" to
other parts of the state or country: steel girders may come from
the midwest, lawbooks from Minnesota, a paper mill's lumber from
outside the skate, etc.). Instead of computing the number of in-
direct jobs, it may be more appropriate to look for aspects of the
development which are especially likely to increase local employ-
ment. For example, note if the development (a) is near a shopping
center, so workers may stop there on the way home from work;
(b) is especially likely to buy supplies from local businesses; or
(c) exports goods and services outside the area, thus obtaining
outside income.

*We assume labor is about 50% of construction costs, a man-year is
equivalent to 2,000 hours, and hourly wages range from about $7 to
$10 (source: Association of General Contractors). The Boston Re-
development Authority has assumed slightly more than 30 man-years
of employment per million dollars of construction (e.g., 32 for
offices, 33 for retailing, 34 for factories). "Jobs for Boston's
Future - Expanding the City's Economic Base Through Capital In-
vestment - Mayor Kevin White's Program", November, 1975.

- 114 -

Table 5-1
EST. CONSTRUCTION JOBS BY BUILDING TYPE

Est. 1976 Con-
Building struction Cost Est. Man-Yeart Per
a
Type Per Sq. Ft. 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Warehouse $15-20 04.5-0.6

Factory 15-25 0.5-0.8

Shopping Center, Retail Store 15-25 0.5-0.8

Motel, Hotel 25-35 0.8-1.1

Office
low-rise 25-40 0.8-1.2
high-rise 40-55 1.2-1.7

Restaurant 30-45 0.9-1.4

School 30-45 0.9-1.4

Bank 40-50 1.2-1.5

Hospital 55-75 1.7-2.3

allerr Associates estimates based on Means, Building Construction.
Cost Data, 1975; McGraw Hill, Dodge Construction System Costs,
197-
5; and Pasadena & Foothill Chapter, AIA, Preliminary Cost_Guide,
Complete System for Total Project Development, 1974.
uAssumes 30 man-years per million dollars of construction costs.

115

Table 5@-2
SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE

Building Average Common Range
officea 200 s.f. 150- 225 s.f.
b
retail 500 250- 750

manufacturingC 550 250-1,500
warehoused 800 500-1,500

hotel/motele 7 rooms

aB.R.A. estimates about 210 sq. ft., "Jobs for Boston's Future..."
bSq. ft. gross leasable area. Varies by type of store: low for
supermarkets, drugstores; high for furniture and hardware stores.
See: Trip Generation by Land Use, Part I, A Summary of Studies
Conducted, Maricopa Association of Governments, Arizona, 1974;
U.S. C@_nsus of Retail Trade,,, 1972 (Sales per employee);
Urban Land Institute, Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, 1975
Washington, D.C. (sal7es per sq. ft.).
cVaries widely: low for precision instruments, primary and fab-
ricated metals, apparel, chemicals; rubber, plastics, printing;
high for paper, furniture, metal machinery, wood products, stone,
clay, glass, concrete. See: Trip Generation; Boston Economic
Development and Industrial Commission, "Boston's Industry", 1970.
.dSource: Trip Generation.
tource: B.R.A., "Jobs for Boston's Future..."

116

B. Outside Hiring. Are a large number of the new jobs likely
to be filled by workers from outside the region? This may sometimes
happen in non-metropolitan or small metropolitan areas where:

- a major construction contract is involved (e.g., for a
power plant, oil refinery, university complex);

- the firm has highly specialized skill requirements (e.g.,
if IBM locates in a rural town);

the firm will employ an exceptionally large-number of people
compared to the existing labor supply*.

Hiring from outside the region can mean an infusion of new
people with new abilities and ideas. It also means that the devel-
opment offers fewer job opportunities for local residents and, in
some cases, might increase housing demand as outside workers move
into the region temporarily or permanently. Some of the new hous-
ing might be built in the community, with its own fiscal, social,.
and economic impacts.

C. Increase in Job Opportunities. 1,000 permanent jobs in a
development should not be interpreted as 1,000 new jobs for commun-
ity residents. Only a fraction of the jobs will go to residents,
the rest to workers from other cities and towns (for example, only
1/3 of the jobs in Boston's recent office buildings were filled by
Boston residents**). It is very difficult to predict who will
actually fill the.jobs (and who in turn will fill the jobs that the
new employees leave behind).

It may be more appropriate to think of the development's jobs
as,an increase in the employment choices and opportunitiesacces-
sible to community residents. The number of jobs in the development
might be compared with the number of jobs already within commuting
range of local residents (perhaps 30-45 minutes):

% Increase in Job Opportunities

Jobs in Development
Current Employment in Community and Surrounding Towns

*The current number of people working or looking for work (the
"labor force") may be obtained from the state Division of Employ-
ment Security, "Massachusetts Trends in Labor Force, Employment
Unemployment". The labor force is usually about 40% of an area's
population. At any point in time, about 5% of an area's popula-
tion may be seeking new employment.
**Boston Redevelopment Authority, "A Demographic Revolution: The
Impact of Office.Building and Residential Tower Development in
Boston", December, 1972.

117

Current employment for each city and town can be obtained from
the State Division of Employment Security, "Employment and Wages in
Establishments Subject to the Massachusetts Employment Security Law".
Coverage by this data is far from complete (government, agriculture,
and some other categories are left out) but it may provide a rough
basis for the current number of jobs.

D. Type of Jobs. The community should consider the type of
jobs that would be offered. Are they the kind that community resi-
dents can or want to apply for? Job needs are different in each
community. In some, the key concern may be year-round jobs, in
others part-time second jobs would be especially valuable. Rele-
vant job characteristics might include:
- Wages. Table !5;.!.-3 shows average annual wages in different
industries.

Skills. Table 5-4 shows occupations required for different
industries. How does the mix of new jobs compare to the skills and
occupations of current residents, especially those now unemployed?*
Do jobs and skills match? Are the types of new jobs attractive?
Are they attainable? Would a job training program be needed or
useful? Is one anticipated?

- Sex. Are jobs likely to go mainly to men or women?**

- Full-time or part-time.

- Year-round or seasonal.

- Labor conditions, such as on-the-job training, career
ladder, stable employment, unionization.

1.2 Business Opj2ortunities

New development can affect business opportunities in a number
of ways.

A. Competition. Will new commercial,development draw a sub-
stantial number of customers away from existing community stores?
This may not be a major concern where:

residents now shop outside the community for items to be
sold in the new development. If people now go to a department
store miles away, a new department store in town may offer little
direct competition to local merchants.

*The U.S. Census shows the 1970 occupations for all residents and
for those who were then unemployed.; "Social and Economic Charac-
teristics".' 7
**Also avai-lable for,each industry from the 1970 Census, but con-
ditions are changing.

118

Table 5-3
AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES IN MASSACHUSETTSY 1974

Economic Activity Average Annual Wage

Agriculture ......................... $ 7,800

Mining .............................. 12,000

Construction ........................ 12,200

Manufacturing ........................ lOY200
Ordnance .......................... 16)900
Food .............................. 91800
Textiles .......................... 8JI500
Apparel ........................... 63,300
Furniture ... ..................... 8.1300
Paper ............................. 10)400
Printing .......................... 10YO00
Chemicals ......................... 122200
Petroleum, Coal ................... 13)600
'Rubber, Plastics .................. 9)200
Leather ........................... 7)400
Stone, Clay, Glass ................ 11.1800
Primary Metal ...................... 112000
Fabricated Metal .................. IOJ-400
Machinery (not electrical) ........ IIY700
Electrical Equipment .............. 109600
Transport Equipment ............... 12Y700
Instruments ....................... 112700

Transportation, Communications,
Utilities ...................... I...... 11,200
Passenger Transit ................. 5YO00 (plus tips)
Trucking .......................... 112600
Air Transport ..................... 14,700
Communications .................... 11,600
Utilities ......................... 13,500

Wholesale & Retail Trade ............ 7Y000
Wholesale ......................... 11,300
Building Materials, Farm Equip. 91700
Dept. Stores, etc . ................ 5)400
Food ..@ .......... ; .............. 5.9800
Auto dealers, gas tations 81800
Apparel ........................... 5JI600
Furniture and appliances .......... 7,500
Restaurant ........................ 39600 (plus tips)

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 99700
Banks ............................. 8,900
Insurance Carriers ................ 10,100
Real Estate ....................... 8,000

119

Table 5-3 (cont.)

Economic Activity Average Annual Wage

Services ........................... 7p9OO
Hotels, motels ................... 4,500 (plus tips)
Personal services ................ 5,300
Business services ................ 8,200
Auto repair .......... 7,300
Amusements ........... 5,900
Health care ...................... 7,700
Education ........................ 9,300
Non-profit organizations ......... 6,000
Otheir (professional) services .... 12,600

Source: Mass. Division of Employment Security, "Employment and
Wages in Establishments Subject to the Massachusetts Em-
ployment Security Law, State Summary 1974", rounded off
to nearest $100.

120

Table 5-4
OCCUPATIONS FOR DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES

% of Industry Workers in Ea ch Qgcupation
professionals, clerical, - :-- Iii service
Industry managers sales craftsmen, o peratives laborers workers TOTAL a

construction 13 7 57 6 12 1 100

manufacturing 18 16 18 41 1 1 100

transport,
communications,
utilities 14 28 21 24 6 3 100

wholesale trade 20 44 10 19 5 1 100

retail trade 16 41 8 8 4 18 100

finance, insur.,
real estate 21 70 1 1 4 100

business & pro-
fessional
services 52 18 5 1 1 20 100

other services 14 12 3 11 2 53 1,00

TOTAL ALL
INDUSTRIES 25 ..26 13 17 3 12 100

adoes not add due to rounding

Source: U.S. Census, 1974 Detailed Characteristics

new development is relatively small compared to existing
commercial development in the town.

- substantial population (or income) growth is expected in the
area to be served by the new development. Rapid growth can suppcrt
additional stores without creating vacancies.

Where competition seems serious, the developer's market analy-
sis may suggest where sales will come from. Another approach is to:

(1) Estimate annual sales in the new development (from the
developL-r or, say, $70 per sq. ft., $130 per sq. ft. for super-
markets)#.

(M) If the development will serve several towns (e.g., a
regional shopping center), estimate what share of its sales will
come from stores in your community. The fraction depends on exist-
ing commercial development in the community compared to other towns
to be served by the new development (U.S. Census of Retail Trade in-
dicates 1972 sales for each community).

(2) Compare new development sales (1 or IA) to current
sales for that category of store in the community (U.S. Census of
Retail Trade). This suggests the seriousness of potential competi-
tion.

B. Existing Commercial Areas. New development in or near
existing commercial areas may strengthen those areas. New offices,
stores, hotels attract more people to an area. This means more
potential customers for existing stores and services, a principle
well-illustrated in successful downtowns and regional shopping cen-
ters**. Important implications:

(1) New stores can have two opposite effects: capturing
customers but also inducing potential shoppers to nearby stores.
The overall effect may be to shift sales from one part of the com-
munity to another.

(2) The exact location and layout of new development may
be very important. Does the design encourage or discourage patrons
and employees from shopping at existing stores (e.g., by providing
I-stop parking, convenient walkways, joint access, etc.)?

*Per. sq.--'ft. of gross-leasable area. Dollars.and.Cents of Shopping
Centers'LproVides estimates of-sales per sq. ft. for specific kinds
of stores.
**Even directly competitive stores often do better when they are
close together, offering shoppers a wider array of goods to
choose from.

122

C Local Suppliers. Is the new activity likely to purchase
supplies from other.local firms (e.g., a container company buying
from a local paper mill)? Look for specific arrangements or pos-
sible connections with local contractors and merchants. Other
general considerations:

(1) Small firms generally use outside services more than
large firms (a large company may have its own photocopying, print-
ing, stationery, legal and medical departments);

(2) In terms of the state as a whole, finance, services,
construction, agriculture, and trucking seem to create the greatest
additional economic activity. Manufacturing has smaller indirect
impacts, since many raw materials come from outside the state*.

D. Space for Entrepreneurs. Will the development provide
spaces for new local businesses? Things to look for:

- specific arrangements to accommodate local entrepreneurs
(e.g., a mall with booths to be rented to local people);

spaces suitable for local businesses (such as complexes of
small shops or offices) rather than spaces suitable only for,major
outside firms;

- any displacement of existing local businesses from the site.
Relocation may be a difficult problem, especially for small busi-
nesses or those with very specialized site requirements.

3.3 Other Effects

A. Export Industries. Will the new development simply serve
existing population (witN-s'hops, services, hospitals, schools...)
or will it sell goods and services to people outside the region?
"Export" or "basic" industries earn.outside dollars and support pop-
ulation and employment growth. Regional population growth requires
"basic" job development or else results in more out-commuting or
unemployment. ("Taking in each other's laundry" doesn't provide
enough jobs for all the region's workers.)**

Export industries include those which:

ship goods or provide services to state and national markets.
Examples:. manufacturing, agriculture, major offices for large
-organizations (e.g., the I.R.8. in Andover);

*Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Administration, Univ.
of Mass. at Amherst, The Economic ImEact of Tourism on the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts,,13ece r, 1974 kTable IV-7-1).
**It is not always easy (or useful) to distinguish export and local
service jobs, especially in metropolitan communities. See Hans
Blumerffeld, "The Economic Basis of the Metropolis, Critical Remarks
on the 'Basic-Nonbasic' Concept", Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, 1955.

123

bring outsiders to the region, where they spend money (earned
elsewhere) on food, lodging, supplies, etc. Examples: tourism,
summer homes, universities, military bases.

B. Diverse Economy. Activities which diversify the region's
economy may be especially valuable. Areas now dependent on one or
two major export industries may experience severe unemployment if
those industries close, move away (as has happened with textiles,
shoes, defense contracts) or occasionally have bad years (e.g.,
construction and tourism). New activities which broaden the
region's economy reduce that dependence and may assure greater
economic stability.

C. Nearby Property Values. Nearby property values may in-
crease or decrease, depending on the development's social, aesthetic,
economic and traffic consequences. Public discussion often focuses
on the change in property values. We urge caution in making predic-
tions, however. The issue is often loaded. All neighbors are
experts. Effects are sometimes quite complex. Following are some
ways to deal with the subject.

(1) Identify impacts which seem clear and large (an un-
sightly factory will certainly reduce values of nearby residences).

(2) Focus on the area immediately surrounding a major
development, where effects are likely to be strongest.

(3) Analyze.the source of neighbors' concerns. Neighbors'
predictions about property values usually reflect other concerns
about the proposal-- its-appearance-, traffic, noise, occupants.
These concerns Should be dealt with directly.

(4) Recognize the range of possible impacts, Added traffic
on a street may decrease the value of residential properties, but
increase the.value of commercial properties. A parcel may become
less valuable in its current use (e.g., as a single-family home)
but more valuable for a future use (as a gas station, apartment
house, .,-). By reducing the supply of vacant land in an area, the
development cab push up the price of remaining vacant parcels.
Very large developments may saturate the local market for that land
use and temporarily depress nearby land values*. The proposal might
pave the way for subsequent intensive development in the area; it
may set a precedent for future public decisions, encourage other
developers, and precipitate major public facility improvements
which would also serve surrounding property.

*The new town of Columbia, Md., reduced land values in its immediate
vicinity by capturing a large share of potential new residents.
Mohammed Qadeer, "Local Land Market and a New Town: Columbia's
Impact on Land Prices in Howard County, Maryland", Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, March, 1974.

- 124

(5) Do not make detailed predictions. Lay judgment may
well be challenged in terms of reliability and fairness.

D. Other Economic Impacts. Consider other economic impacts
which seem significant. For example, a new firm which greatly in-
creases demand for certain types of workers (e.g., female clerical
help, skilled craftsmen, unskilled laborers) can pressure existing
firms employing such people to increase wages. Whether and how new
workers-will be unionized affects existing unions in the community.
Outside workers who will move into the community have their own
economic impacts (see Residential Development below).

2. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Residential development also has economic impacts, although
these are sometimes less visible than effects of new stores and
factories.

2.1 Construction Jobs

New residentialdevelopment creates construction jobs. Each
dwelling unit involves about 1 man-year of on-site construction
labor*.

2.2 Second Homes as an Export Industry

Second (and retirement) homes are really an "export" or "basic"
industry. Occupants have earned money elsewhere, which they spend
in the region for food, doctors, gasoline, property taxes, etc.
This supports new jobs in the community and region. As a rough
guess, we estimate that each second home supports 0.15 year-round
jobs** (perhaps twice as many jobs during the peak season).

2.3 Retailing in the Community

New residents will support additional store sales in the com-
munity and surrounding towns. In 1972, the average Massachusetts
resident spent about $2,300 in supermarkets, gas stations, depart-
ment stores, restaurants, and other retail establishments***.

Thus, 1,000 new residents might generate between $2,000,000 m d
$3,000,000 in retail sales. (Higher income residents more, lower
income less; seasonal residents perhaps 1/5 as much as year-round
residents). This would increase sales in existing stores and might

*Source: Massachusetts Association of Homebuilders.
**Herr Associates, "Social and Economic Impact, the Crumpin-Fox
Development, Bernardston, Mass.", prepared for the Franklin County
Planning Department, 1972. We have found roughly similar results
on Cape Cod.
***U.S. Census of Retail Trade.

125

support another 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. of retail space (assuming
annual sales of $60 to $70 per square foot).

How is this likely to affect local retailing? Some but not
all of the new saIes,would occur in the community*. The community's
share depends on how its commercial facilities compare with those of
surrounding towns in terms of scale, variety, relative distance from
the development, and room for expansion. For example, if the com-
munity contains a wide array of shops and is the dominant commercial
center in its region, it may capture a very large share of new resi-
dents' purchases. A small community with a few local convenience
stores might initially only attract a small share of purchases.

In the long run, major new residential development may create
substantial pressures for new commercial development within the
community. Approving large residential proposals may thus have
long-range effects on commercial growth and commercial zoning in
other parts of the community.

2.4 Employment in the Region

Large residential developments may attract new residents (and
potential workers) into the region. Such a development could affect
regional employment, and unemployment, in a number of ways (this
doesn't apply to second or retirement homes which don't add new
workers):

a. Labor force. New residents mean more people holding, or
looking for, jobs in.the region. There are normally about 400 job-
seekers for every 1,000 residents.

b. Service jobs. Residents will support additional jobs in
retailing, medical care, government and other services. We roughly
estimate that 1,000 new residents support 150-200 new service.jobs
in the region**.

c. Need for export jobs. Residential development thus adds
more job seekers than support for service jobs, perhaps twice as
many. This suggests a need for increasing the number of jobs in
export or basic industries. If export job growth doesn't keep pace,
the result may be more long-distance commuting out of the region,

*An elaborate method for estimating local sales is described in
Daryl Hellman, "External Impacts of Housing Developments, Calculat-
ing Effects on Commercial Property Values", Urban Land, October, 1974.
**The ratio depends on the size of the region, income of residents,
and how one distinguishes "local service" jobs from total employment.
150'209 isa rough guess. See: Franklin County Planning Department
and Herr Associates, "State of the Economy: 1975, Franklin County,
Massachusetts"; and Edward Ullman, Michael Dacey, Harold Brodsky,
The Economic Base of American Cities, Seattle: University of
Washington, Center for Urban and Regional Research, rev. 1971.

126

increased, unemployment, or vacant dwelling units (in or out of
the new development),

The number of jobs needed can be compared with likely growth
in basic industries. For reference, covered employment figures from
the Division of Employment Security let you quickly identify past
job growth in manufacturing; past growth in tourism, government,
and other basic industries is much harder to determine.

2.5 Community Balance Between People and Jobs

Residential development also affects employment within the com-
munity. It adds to the labor force, but supports a much smaller
number of service jobs within the community (many of the service
jobs may occur in nearby towns, as suggested in the discussion of
retail sales)*. If basic job growth in the community doesn't make
up the difference, the result may be increased out-commuting to
other towns.

Commuting due to the development can be compared with current
net commuting patterns in the town**. Is the development likely to
change these patterns very much? Increased out-commuting may not be
economically but does affect people's time and energy, the
social character of the community, and the local tax rate.

*In a small, rural town, 1,000 new residents might lead to 50 ser-
vice jobs in the community; in a large town or city with major
commercial development, 1,000 new residents might create 150 jobs
within the community.
**The Office of State. Planning has compiled 1970 U.S. Census data on
the number of jobs and total labor force in each community (their
data also shows commuting to and from every other city and town).
State D.E.S. lists*current labor force and covered employment in
each community, providing a more recent picture of net commuting.

127

CHAPTER 5A

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING

SUMMARY

We have briefly considered economic impacts of commercial re-
zoning at Drum Hill rotary. Key findings include:

a. A regional shopping center is likely to provide twice as
many jobs as an industrial park on the site (Table 5A-1). The
center would provide slightly fewer blue-collar jobs but many more
clerical and sales positions. These positions would especially
appeal to housewives, teenagers and workers seeking second jobs.

b. Not all jobs would go to Chelmsford residents, of course,
no matter what is built on the site. The shopping center would,
however, substantially increase the number of jobs within the
town, perhaps by 50%. This would reduce net out-commuting (now
very substantial), improve the local balance between people and
jobs, and provide convenient job opportunities for Chelmsford
residents.

C. The center will compete with some existing Chelmsford
stores. To some extent, this competition is inevitable even if
the proposal is rejected, as new stores are built elsewhere in the
region. The shopping center would attract many out-of-town
shoppers to Drum Hill, inducing sales at nearby stores.

d. Commercial development seems much more likely than indus-
trial development on the site (although both are very uncertain).
Expected economic benefits are therefore much greater under commer-
cial zoning.

e. if the site isn't rezoned, commercial development will
occur some way, somewhere in the region. There might be an equally
large center in another community (perhaps Tyngsborough or Lowell or
further away) or many more small stores throughout the region.
Either way, total retail sales will be about the same but the shop-
ping opportunities and new jobs may be less accessible to Chelms-
ford residents.

f. Will rezoning preclude industrial development in the town
or region? Without a specific proposal, nobody can say. It seems
unlikely, however, since even within Chelmsford there are several
other available sites large enough to serve industrial demand for
many years at recent growth rates.

g. The greater number of potential jobs and the greater chance
of development provide a strong argument for commercial rezoning.
Economic impacts of rezoning should be considered together with
fiscal impacts (also clearly positive) and traffic impacts (clearly
negative).

128

Table 5A-1
ESTIMATED PERMANENT JOBS

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

1. Possible type of Industrial park Regional shop-
development center

2. Possible number of 1,000 2,200
permanent jobsa

3. Probability of full devel- 15% 50%
opment within 5 years

4. "Expected" number of jobs 150 1,100
on site (line 2 x line 3)

aTable 5A-3

Economic impacts were evaluated as follows.

EMPLOYMENT

a. Construction Jobs. The shopping center is a much larger
undertaking than industrial development on the site; it would pro-
vide many more construction jobs (Table 5A-2). In peak years, the
Center would substantially increase construction employment in
Chelmsford. Both projects are so large that outside contractors
are likely to bring their own foremen and possibly craftsmen, per-
haps hiring only laborers locally.

b. Number of Permanent Jobs. Table 5A-3 shows how permanent
jobs were estimated. At this point, we can't predict whether (and
how many) indirect jobs would be created off-site.

C. Increase in Job Opportunities. Both developments might
substantially increase Chelmsford employment (Table 5A-3). Aside
from creating more jobs, the shopping center might also hire a
greater percentage of Chelmsford residents, since people charac-
teristically commute relatively short distances to sales jobs.

d. Job Characteristics. Tables 5A-4.and 5A-5 show the type
of jobs that may be created. Compared to manufacturing, shopping
center jobs pay less, are more likely to be seasonal or part-time,
and are more likely to be held by women (Table 5A-4). in absolute
terms, however, the center is so large that it would have a greater
total payroll, more male employees, and more year-round positions
than an industrial park.

The centerts clerical and sales jobs match the skills of many
Chelmsford residents (Table 5A-5). The center would also provide
a substantial number of craftsmen and operative positions, which
may be important for currently unemployed community residents.

129

Table 5A-2
CONSTRUCTION JOBS: MAN-YEARS LABOR ON-SITE

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning

Gross floor area, if site
developed 550YO00 S.f. 1,260,000 s.f.

x Est. construction cost per
s.f.a $20 $20

Total construction costb $11 million $25.2 million

x Man-years per $ milliona 30 30

Total man-years on-site labor 330 760

EFFECTS DURING PEAKYEAR:
# Man-years 70c 270d

% increase in Chelmsford
construction employmente@f 15% 58%

% increase in Lowell SMSA
construction employmente,g 3% 10%

afrom "Economic Impacts".
balternate way of estimating:
if assessments are about 70% of market value, industrial park
might cost $6.3 million (requiring 190 man-years); shopping
center might cost $21.6 million (requiring 650 man-years).
Cassumes only 1/5 of industrial park is built in any one year,
i.e., about 12 or 13 acres are developed in a year; recently,
industrial growth in all of Chelmsford has averaged about 15
acres per year.
dduring construction of initial stage (about 900,000 s.f.) which
may itself take about 2 years (General Growth Properties,
"Importance of the Mall to the Community", 1975).
epeak man-years on the site compared to 1974 annual average con-
struction employment. Assumes all jobs are new to area. On the
other hand, man-years provide a conservative estimate of increase
in annual employment.
fbased on Massachusetts Division of Employment Security, "Massachu-
setts Cities and Towns, Employment and Wages in Establishments
Subject to the Mass. Employment Security Law", 1974 supplement.
gbased on Mass. D.E.S., "Employment and Wages in Massachusetts
and the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas", 1970-1974.

130

Table 5A-3
PERMANENT JOBS IF SITE DEVELOPED

Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Gross floor area 550,000 s.f. 1,120,000 s.f.a
s.f. per employee b 550 s.f.c 500 s.f.
Est. # of employeesd 1,000 2,200e

% increase in annual average
employment in same categoryf:
Chelmsfordg 100% (manufact) 111% (trade)
Lowell SMSA9 5% 17%

% increase in total annual
average employmentf:
Chelmsfordg 2@% 45%
Lowell SMSA9 2% 4%

aGross leasable area (1,261,000 s.f. floor area minus 141,000
s.f. for malls, courts, etc.)
b"Economic Impacts", Table 5-2.
CVaries widely by type of manufacturing.
dNearest hundred.
eDeveloper estimates 2,400 ("Importance of the Mall to the Com--@
munity")
fCovered employment; assumes all jobs are new to area.
gSee sources, Table 5A-2.

131

Table 5A-4
POSSIBLE JOB CHARACTERISTICS

Current Zoninga Proposed Zoning

Wages
Averageb $ 10.1200 $ 5,500c
Total 10)200,000 12,100,000

Male Employees
of totald 67 35e
670 770

Employees Working Full Year f
of totald 70 51
700 1,120

aFor maiufacturing, in general; may vary considerably by type of
manufacturing..
bD.E.S., State Summary, 1974.
cHerr Associates estimate; D.E.S. indicates $5,400 for general
merchandising (dept. stores), $5,600 for apparel.
dU.S. Census 19703, "Detailed Characteristics"
eHerr Associates estimate; Census indicates 31% for general
merchandising, 45% for all retail trade.
fFor all retail trade.

132

Table 5A-5
OCCUPATIONS

Professionals, Clerical, Craftsmen,
Managers Sales Qperatives Other TOTAL

JOBS IN DEVELOPMENT

Current Zoning # 180 160 590 70 1,000
%a 18% 16% 59% 7% 100%

Proposed Zoning 350 900 350 600 2,200
%a 16% 41% 16% 27% .100%

CHELMSFORD RESIDENTS, 1970b

All employed 4,693 3@045 2Y603 IY213 Ily554
% 41% 26% 20% 13% 100%

Previous Job
of Unemployed 59 74 143 70 346
% 177, 21% 41% 21% 100%

a"Economic Impacts", Table 5-4 (based on 1970 U.S. Census).
bU.S. Census, 1970, Social and Economic Characteristics.

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

a. Competition. To what extent will the shopping center com-
pete with existing stores in Chelmsford? This depends on where the
center's potential customers now shop.

Chelmsford's.population comprises about 15% of the total in the
market area the developer's analysts have estimated for the center.
Because of proximity and relative affluence, the share of sales to
Chelmsford residents will doubtless be high, but not likely more
than 25% of total sales. The other 75% plus will be sales to non-
residents.

The center is more directly competitive with downtown Lowell
and the Burlington.Mall than with the convenience goods stores which
comprise the bulk of Chelmsford retailing. Accordingly, we judge
that more than half of sales in the center to Chelmsford residents
will be sales which, but for the center being here, would have
occurred out of town anyhow. Similarly, the bulk of sales to non-
residents will be sales shifted to Chelmsford from out of town loca-
tions, rather than from local outlets. On this basis, we estimate
that about 20% of the center's sales might be shifted from else-
where in the town.

% of sales shifted from
Out-of-town Chelmsford
Purchasers stores stores Total

Chelmsford residents 15 10 25
Other customers 65 10 75
TOTAL 80 20 100

Table 5A-6 indicates the volume of sales that may be captured
from Chelmsford stores. Conclusions:

(1) Although competition is mainly with out-of-town stores,
the center is likely to capture 1/7 of the sales in existing
Chelmsford stores.

(2) Competition is likely to be most serious for existing
clothing, variety, discount and furniture stores. The developer
estimates the center will capture 30% of the region's spending on
such items, only 5-10% of spending on food or drugs.

(3) The developer assumes substantial population and income
growth in the region. Such growth might support major retail devel-
opment without creating vacancies. Substantial growth is far from
certain., however; without it, the center will probably create at
least some vacancies, somewhere, for some period of time.

(4) Rejecting the proposal may mean that the center gets built
elsewhere in the region. At another location, the center might
still compete with Chelmsford.stores, although perhaps not as
directly.

134

Table 5A-6
EFFECT OF SHOPPING CENTEWON CHELMSFORD STORES

Gross leasable area 1,120,000 s.f.a
x Est. annual sales per sq. ft. $ 70b

Total annual sales 78 million

x Est. share of sales captured from
Chelmsford stores 20%

Sales captured from Chelmsford stores $ 16 million
t Current total sales in Chelmsford c
stores $ 115 million

% of current Chelmsford sales which
shift to the center 147o

aTable 5A-2
b1975 prices; developer assumes $70/sq. ft. as initial average
operating volume for the department stores.
c1972 U.S. Census of Retail Trade, adjusted for 1975 prices

Source: Herr Associates estimates

135

b. Existing Commercial Areas. The shopping center may thus
reduce sales in Chelmsford center and other parts of town. It will,
however, attract tens of thousands of shoppers from other communities
to the Drum Hill area. Some of them will also shop at other stores
in and around Drum Hill*. Sales at these stores may increase con-
siderably, even if they only attract a small fraction!of shopping
center patrons. These induced shoppers would have to spend one
dollar in those neighboring stores for every four dollars they spend
in the center to fully offset the effect of sales shifted from one
Chelmsford location to another. That seems unlikely given present
stores, but with new development it could occur.

C. Local Suppliers. A shopping center or an industrial park
might purchase supplies from local firms but there is no reason to
think thatthis effect would be especially large.

d. Space for Entrepreneurs. The shopping center might well
accommodate local entrepreneurs, especially in the mall area between
the department stores. We don't know of any specific arrangements
to rent to Chelmsford businessmen, however. Conceivably an indus-
trial park might also provide space for local firms, although this
may be less likely.

OTHER IMPACTS

New industrial development could add to the economic base of
the Lowell region, bringing in outside income. It might diversify
the regional economy and induce population growth, some of which
might occur in Chelmsford. There is no way to estimate such effects
in advance of a specific development proposal.

A shopping center will draw on existing income and job-seekers,
probably not bringing in much income or new residents to the region.
The center might also affect property values in the immediate
neighborhood. Nearby commercial properties might increase in value
(all those new potential customers). Residential properties,
especially along North Road, might decrease in value due to the
added traffic volumes.

*Although the mall may be beyond walking distance from stores on
Drum Hill Road, so that shoppers would have to drive from one
store location to another.

136 -

CHAPTER 6

SOCIAL IMPACTS

Social impacts of development decisions are often very import-
ant to community residents but are not often explicitly dealt with
in impact analyses. New development can affect community character
by changing the type and number of residents, the adequacy of their
housing, the style and structure of local government, community
amenities, the visual qualities of the commiinity,and the perceived
image of the community.

These issues are often ignored in impact studies because they
are hard to quantify, touch on strong political and emotional feel-
ings, raise sensitive legal issues, are clouded by misconceptions,
and may not by themselves provide sufficient grounds for public
decision. Despite these difficulties, it is still valuable to con-
sider social impacts since:

- Social impacts may be residents' major concerns about Pro-
posed development, although official debate centers on, say, fiscal
or traffic impacts;

- Failure to bring these concerns out in the open makes it
harder to resolve conflicts;

Analysis can suggest ways in which the proposal could be
changed so that its social impacts would be more beneficial;

- Discussion can help prepare the community fDr impending
change, easing the transition if a major development is built.

It is therefore useful to provide a structured opportunity for
bringing social concerns into public discussion, evaluating those
concerns as objectively as possible, suggesting which hopes or fears
may be reasonable and which may be unwarranted, and determining
appropriate actions by the community and the developer. A relatively
simple approach is often best, involving:

1. early citizen input to identify the most critical concerns
(see pages 7, 11) ;

2. reference to community needs and resources which have al-
ready been identified and detailed by a Master Plan; by response
to the State Growth Policy Questionnaire; by specific local agencies
such as a Town Government Study Committee, Historic District Commis-
sion, Housing Authority; by the regional planning agency and State
Department of Community Affairs; and by other organizations such as
a housing action group or civic association;

137

3. thinking through the likely ramifications of the proposal;

4. in some cases, review of similar developments which have
been built in the community or region;

5. in a limited number of cases, conducting surveys, although
these are often costly, time-consuming, and can easily produce
distorted results*.

Following are some important considerations in evaluating
social impacts.

Value Judgments. Many social impacts may be either good or
bad, depending on one's point of view. A more diverse population,
for example, may be valued by some, feared by others. Analysis
should try to make clear the extent of change due to a new develop-
ment (often less change than supporters or opponents had assumed).
Evaluation of that change should be left to citizens and officials.

Area Affected. Consider impacts on both the entire community
(e.g., housing supply, form of government) and the immediate
neighborhood. Proposals can dramatically affect neighborhood
character, but have little effect on the rest of the community.
New development often has the greatest impact on current residents
who live within earshot or view, live on streets providing access
to the development, or will use the same shops, parks, or schools
as occupants of the new development.

Will Change Happen Anyway? Many communities don't want to
change. Major development proposals highlight change and are often
blamed -for all the effects of growth on a community. Some growth
and change may be inevitable, however, whether or not the develop-
ment in question is approved. In retrospect, for example, few
individual residential developments have by themselves increased
community population above what it would otherwise have been, since
population is usually determined by more basic social and economic
forces., Therefore:

1. Consider likely changes in the community's social character
if the proposal is rejected (through new development on and off the
site, turnover of residents in existing units, etc.);

*Some investigators place considerable emphasis on surveys of citi-
zen attitudes and perceptions. For example, people living near
apartments have been surveyed to determine social interactions,
feelings toward new residents, and changes in their activity pat-
terns. See New Jersey County and Municipal Government Study Com-
mission, Housing & Suburbs: Fiscal and Social Impact of Multi-
Family Development, October, 1974; Philip Schaenman and Thomas
Muller, Measuring Impacts of Land Development, Urban Institute,
1974; and "Report of the Apartment Impact Study Committee" for
the Burlington, MA, Planning Board, March 15, 1973.

138

2. Determine what *difference the proposal would make; compare
the proposal to what the community might otherwise be like (say)
10 years from now, not what the community is like today.

Frequently, attention should focus not on growth per se, but
on the particular location, design and timing of that growth.

Assimilation. Will it be easy to assimilate new development
into the community? This is often the fundamental question. The
answer greatly depends on the proposed development's:

1. scale, compared to existing development nearby; small
projects are less,disruptive visually and socially;

2. phasing; slower growth is less disruptive;

3. balance; a project with both single-family homes and
apartments produces less dramatic change on a single-family neigh-
borhood than an all-apartment project would;

4. separatio n from the community; sometimes buffers are used
to separate a project from its neighbors, but often people are more
concerned that two separate communities might be created. Social
segregation between the proposal and neighbors can be reduced by:
(a) building the development in small components (e.g., extending,
not interrupting, the existing street pattern); (b) marketing the
development so that it will include some old community residents
(not only newcomers); (c) providing facilities (e.g., playgrounds)
which will be used jointly by project residents and the general
public.

We have outlined six potential social impacts: population,
housing, local government, amenities, visual quality, and community
image. Other social impacts are not dealt with in this chapter be-
cause they are discussed in other chapters (e.g., social conse-
quences of traffic and jobs) or are very hard to evaluate (e.g.,
effects on sociability, privacy, security, crime*).

1. POPULATION

Development affects the number and type of people who live,
work, shop in or visit the community. New dwellings have the
greatest impact and are discussed below. Population impacts may
also be important in other situations, however. Some proposals
would displace existing residents from the site (perhaps forcing
them to move out of the community). Major factories and other. new
employers may increase local housing demand, indirectly increasing
population. College qormitories, hospitals, nursing homes and

*For discussion of such issues, see Schaenman and Muller, Measuring
Impacts of Land Development. Be skeptical of easy conclusions on
tftese impacts; people often have strong prejudices.

- 139

other live-in institutions have many of the same population char-.
acteristics as residences. Hotels, guest houses and campgrounds
also increase population, at least temporarily*. Finally, some
non-residential facilities can result in tremendous but sporadic
influxes of population. For example, sports and exhibition arenas,
entertainment centers, and recreation facilities can attract large
numbers of people for short periods of time, placing tremendous
burdens on an area's services and facilities, and on the tranquility
of its inhabitants..

Several factors should be considered in evaluating population
impacts of new residences.

1.1 Number of Residents

Estimate for a Specific Development. The population which a
development will initially contain is easily approximated:

Number of single"family.zdwellings x.4.0 =-single-family residents

Number of seasonally-occupied single-family dwellings x 5.0
seasonal residents

Number of multi-family units x 2.5 = multi-family residents

Number of units reserved for the elderly x 1.5 = residents of
housing for elderly.

Table 6-,l provides some additional refinements**.

To get a sense of scale, compare proposal population with the
community's total population increase during the last decade (e.g.,.
1975 state census minus 1965 state census; or 1970 U.S. census
minus 1960 U.S. census; never mix U.S. and state census figures
since they define residence in different ways).

*Some communities recognize these similarities in their regulations.
The following is from the Greenfield, Mass., zoning bylaw:

"Each two guest units in a matel or hotel, four beds in a
hospital, nursing home, or convalescent home, or accommoda-
tions for four persons in a boarding or guest house or
dormitory or other group living arrangement shall be con-
sidered equivalent to a dwelling unit in calculating re-
quired lot area.."

**Alternatively one can use data on size of household from the 1970
U.S. Census@ General Population Characteristics. Increase the per-
sons per household reported there for the community by 1 person
per unit for single-family dwellings, since new homes usually
have more people than average.

140

Table 6-1
PERSONS PER NEW UNIT

No. of Rutgers Common
Type of Unit Bedrooms Study Rangea

High-rise apartment average 2.0 1.2-2.5
0 (studio) 1.2
1 1.8
2 2.5

Garden apartment average 2.2 1.8-3.0
1 1.9
2 2.8

Townhouse average 3.1 2.7-4.0
2 2,.7
3 3.4
4 3.7

Single-family home average 3.5 3.2-4.5
3 3.3
4 3.7
Seasonal dwelling 4.1-6.1 b

Hotel, motel room 2

Campsite

aMay be lower for retirement dwellings, higher for subsidized units.*
-Nithin range, high for Cape, Islands, and Berkshires, low elsewhere.

Sources: Sternlieb and Burchell, "The Numbers Game.: Forecasting
Household Size", Urban Land, January, 1974 (Rutgers Study);
Herr Associates 6-stimates.

141

The hard but important question is whether proposal population
represents a net increase over what would otherwise occur in the
community. Is there some reason to believe that this proposal can,
by itself, substantially alter the community's future population?
Will the project serve a hitherto untapped market through unique
design or marketing strategy? Does this development have some spe-
cial advantage others have lacked, such as better financing, an
extraordinary site, or a special regulatory exemption? Unless some.
answers are "yes", it is unlikely that the proposal would substan-
tially increase the community's future population above what it
would otherwise be (as a result of'development on other sites).

One can also estimate proposal population over time. The
number of people in each single-family home usually decreases over
time (children grow up and move away)*. Apartments do not lose
population, perhaps'even increase slightly over time. Seasonally-
occupied units may be converted to year-round use (a rule of thumb
is that about 10% of such units are converted each year).

Estimate for Rezoning An Area. Population consequences of
rezoning are estimated differently.

1. Calculate the theoretical saturation population in the
area to be rezoned for both present and proposed zoning: total
available land in the area to be rezoned (excluding developed and
undev6lopable land) minus 15% for streets and waste, divided by the
required lot area per dwelling unit equals the saturation number of
dwelling units; multiplying that by population per dwelling unit
gives saturation population.

.85 x (Available developable land) x persons per dwelling unit
Lot area per dwelling unit

saturation population

2. Estimate the probability of development actually occurring
by whatever time horizon,you choose. For example, current zoning
may require 10,000 square foot lots, and the land is under pressure
for development, giving something like a 90% probability of develop-
ment within ten years. Rezoning to 40,000 square foot lots might
reduce the probability of development within that time period pre-
cipitately, say to 50% (though it might not).

3. Multiply the saturation population'by the probability of
development for both present and proposed zoning to get the expected
populations at the time horizon.

To illustrite, suppose 1,000 buildable acres are proposed for
rezoning from 10,000 sq. ft. single-family lots to 20,000 sq. ft. lots.

*In 1970 in the Boston Metropolitan Area (excluding Boston itself)
single-family dwellings less than 10 years old averaged 4.1 persons
per unit, those more than 10 years old averaged 3.0 persons per unit.

142

0.85 x (1,000 acres x 43,560 sq.ft. per acre) x 4.0 persons per
101000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit dwelling unit

14,800 persons at saturation under present zoning

0.85 (1,000 acres x 43,560 sq. ft. per acre) x-4.0 persons per
20,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit dwelling unit

7,400 persons at saturation under proposed zoning.

Probability of development within ten years under.current
zoning judged to be 0.8.

0.8 x 14,800 = 12,000 "expected" ten year population, current zoning

Probability of development within ten years under proposed
zoning judged to be 0.5.

0.5 x 7,400 = 4,000 "expected" ten year population, proposed zoning.

Impact = 12,000 - 4,000 = 8,000 persons reduction

1.2 Growth Rate

Often the rate of population growth has a greater impact on the
community than has the absolute amount of change. There is a tre-
mendous difference in impact if several hundred new residences are
built and occupied in a one or two year period than if the same
number of units are developed over a decade. If, as is too often
the case, the community is unprepared, sudden change may create
severe disruptions in normal activity patterns, place severe strains
on facilities and services, and make the processes of adjustment
much more difficult. Generally, as the rate of growth increases
the pace of change of all types will increase.

Growth rate forresidential projects can be analyzed as follows.

a. Get an estimate from the developer of the anticipated rate
of occupancy of lots or units.

b. Test that against "reasonable" expectations. Considera-
tions might include the following:

- Is there or can there be a limit on occupancy rate im-
posed under zoning? If so, that establishes an upper limit of ex-
pectation.

Is the anticipated number of units per year large in
relation to the average town-wide total number of dwelling units
authorized on-building permits in recent years (data available from
the Building Inspector, annual reports, or the Office of Code
Development, Massachusetts DCA). If it is, is there some reason
to believe that this proposal will, by itself, alter the town's
rate of growth (seepage 142).

143

Is the anticipated nu mber of units per year small in
relation to the total number approved? Again, a warning flag should
be raised, since most developers will try to move their entire devel-
opment as rapidly as the market allows. Is the anticipated devel-
opment rate as high-as the market or regulation will allow? If not,
then the anticipation isn't credible.

Some Massachusetts communities are now regulating growth rate
by requiring that certain projects be phased over a period of sev-
eral years. This can help ease community change due to the pro-
posal. The following is an excerpt from the Greenfield Zoning
Bylaw.

"Residential Development Rate Regulation

Applicability. In granting Special Permits for multi-
family dwellings, for an Open Space Community under
See. 6.13, and for mobile home parks, the Board of Ap-
peals shall establish development phasing schedules
regulating the annual rate at which dwelling units
within such developments may be authorized by building
or occupancy permits.

Considerations. In establishing a development phasing
schedule, the Board of Appeals shall consider and address
in writing the following:

(1) The responsibility of the town to provide for at
lbast'its historic share of regional residential
development, and to provide for the housing needs
of all population groups.

(2) The ability of the town to adequately service the
proposed development with schools, streets, protec-
tive services, and utilities, including considera-
tion of items listed in the most recEntly published
Capital Improvements Program.

(3) Commitments already made in development phasing
authorizations, and the demonstrated ability of the
regional housing market to absorb additional units.

(4) The developer's requested phasing...."

.1.3 Population Origin

Where will new residents come from? If most of the residents
of new housing now live in the community or in its vicinity, the
degree of social change is likely to be much less than if residents
are strangers to the area. To estimate place of origin:

a. Ask the developer. For projects of any size, he should
have made analyses of expectations, and they're probably as good.
a projection as can be made.

144

b. Compare the housing being offered to local housing needs.
Any of the following probably indicate the likelihood of many new-
comers:

A large number of units per year in relation to pre-
vious town-wide rates of development;

Units with costs higher or lower than the norm in the
community;

Multi-family units in a predominantly single-family:
community.

1.4 Population Composition

Who will the development serve? This is often the most sensi-
tive but least.openly discussed issue in the whole range of possible
development impacts. The questions "who will live here?" and "will
they be like us?" are often on many minds but rarely get asked in
public. This subject ds fraught with misconceptions. A New Jersey
study comparing prevailing community attitudes about apartment dwel-
lers (e.g., their income, education, employment, and political lean-
ings) found that the preconceived notions differed dramatically from
the actual characteristics*. A survey in Burlington revealed that
people in single-family neighborhoods abutting apartment developments
typically had a mcre favorable attitude toward apartments and their
inhabitants than did community residents generally.

The overriding issue is the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the
community. On the one hand, people are characteristically more com-
fortable with people like themselves, and the tendency for like
groupings produces more uniform and secure physical and social en-
vironments. On the other hand, increased diversity offers the pos-
sibility of a broader range of services, opportunities, and exper-
iences.

Key factors in considering population composition may include
race/ethnicity, income, occupation, age* 'tenure and stability of
new residents. Take as an example a garden apartment development.
The service demands, activity patterns, and lifestyles of the resi-
dents will be far different if the tenants are primarily elderly
than if they are college students. Another important consideration
is the number of children in the development**i This has important
social, as well as fiscal, consequences. If is often through their
children that adults meet and get to know one another. Children
also mean more activity and less quiet in the neighborhood.

*State of New Jersey County & Municipal Government Study Commission,
Housing and Suburbs: Fiscal and Social Impact of Multi-Family
Development, 1974.
**See page 71 for estimating the number of children in a new devel-
opment.

145

Single-family homes usually have larger households and more
children than multi-family units. However, these differences may
be diminishing* as the increasing price of single-family homes
places them beyond the reach of many households.

Table 6-2 compares household characteristics for relatively
new and older units in the Boston region outside of Boston in 1970.
Such differences in occupants between new and old units can still
generally be expected, although the actual numbers have of course
changed, and although there are many local exceptions to the general
pattern.

In general, occupants of new housing tend to be better educated,
wealthier, and live in more expensive units than occupants of older
housing. The occupants of new single-family homes.tend to be
younger than occupants of older homes, and d6minantly in their
middle years. Occupants of new multi-family units tend to be either
young or old, not in-between, and relatively little different in
age from occupants of older multi-family units. Used with judgment,
these comparisons can help in estimating likely differences between
occupants of proposed units and the rest of the community popula-
tion.

Compare likely population characteristics of the proposed
development with recent trends. Information on the community's
current population cha*racteristics may be obtained from local and
regional planning studies, housing interest groups, and area
realtors.

For a new development, one can estimate characteristics of
future residents based on (a) surveys of similar recent developments,
(b) rough guidesY such as Table 6-2, (c) the developer's marketing
plans, (d) the proposed price or rent levels, from which one can
infer income of the occupants. For single-family homes, annual
family income is often about,40% of the selling price. Family in-.
come may be about 4 times the annual rent in subsidized apartments,
5 to 8 times the rent in medium-priced units, and 10 times the rent
in luxury units.

2. HOUSING IMPACTS

In considering housing impacts, two basic questions should be
addressed. First, how will the proposal affect the range of housing
choice il the community? Second, what will be the implications for
critical housing needs of people who presently lack adequate hous-
ing? Community housing information is usually well-documented.
Sources of information include local and regional planning studies,
the 1970 U.S. Census of Housing, local housing authorities, local
realtors, and housing interest groups. Any community which has ap-

*New Jersey, Housing and Suburbs.

146

Table 6-2
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS, NEW AND OLD DWELLINGS
(BOSTON-SMSA BUT NOT IN BOSTON-CITY, 1970)
New Units" Old Unitsb

Persons per owner-occupied unit 4.1 3.o
Persons per renter-occupied unit 1.8 2.3

Households with children under 18 527, 42%
Years of school completed
Owner-occupied 13.4 12.7
Renter-occupied 12.8 12.4

Income
Owner-occupied $15,000 $12,400
Renter-occupied $ 8,700 $ 7P500

House value $31,600 $24,500

Gross rent $ 178 $ 136

Age of household head, all units
Under 25 5% 5%
25-29 14 9
30-34 14 9
35-44 31 21
45-64 30 42
65+ 6 14

Age of household head, owner-occupied .
Under 25 1% 1%
25-29 9 5
30-34 15 8
35-44 39 23
45-64 33 47
65+ 3 16

Age of household head, renter-occupied
Under 25 16% 157,
25-29 28 19
30-34 11 10
35-44 10 16
45-64 22 30
65+ 13 1

aUnits added by construction during the sixties
bUnits existing in 1960

Source: computed from Table 2, 1970 Census of Housing, Components
of Inventory Change, Boston SMSA, Final Report HC(4)-3

147

plied for a Community Development Block Grant (from HUD) should have
prepared a Housing Assistance Plan including a variety of informa-
tion useful in thinking about local housing issues.

2.1 Housing Supply

Development can affect housing choice in a number of ways.
Does the proposal:

a. broaden the mix of housing in the community (e.g., single-
family and multi-family, year-round and seasonal@ owner and renter"
occupied)? The 1970 U.S. Census of Housing has information on
existing housing by community.

b. broaden the price range of housing in the community?
Note, however, that units priced beyond the means of current resi-
dents will serve outsiders.

C. involve demolition of housing on the site?

d. lead to demolition of housing nearby? A shopping center,
for example, may induce conversion of nearby residential properties
to commercial use.

e. increase demand for existing housing, so that current resi-
dents are displaced by higher-income people? This is sometimes an
indirect effect of major employers, universities, luxury housing,
and recreational facilities.

It is also useful to ask if the proposal is similar, in price
and amenities, to other housing in the community or nearby commun-
ities. If similar housing has a high vacancy rate, the proposal
(1) probably isn't very important for local housing choice, and
(2) may reduce the value of existing housing through over-building.

2.2 Housing Need

How will the proposal affect current residents who live in sub-
standard housing or pay a disproportionate share of their income for
rent?* New development can affect housing needs in several ways:

a. by displacing low and moderzte-income families (especially
large families) and elderly residents, who may have few alternatives
in the local housing market unless adequate relocation is provided;

b. by providing low-cost housing for low and moderate-income
people.. With rising housing costs, new low-cost housing may only

*D.C.A. has estimated the number of people in substandard housing
and those paying more.than 257o of thEdr income for rent in each
community. See Table 7-of the D;C.A. Housing,Needs Study. Compare
their estimate with other local housing data.

148

mean mobile homes or subsidized units*. Information concerning
(1) whether or not any units will be subsidized, (2) how the anti-
cipated prices/rents compare to what people living in the community
can afford, and (3) the number of bedrooms (i.e., can large families
be accommodated) will be helpful in determining whether a develop-
ment will help meet the needs of low and moderate income people.

C.. by affecting the community's status under the Ch. 774
Vlanti-snob zoning" program. New subsidized development may exempt
the community from state override of local regulations**. Projects
approved by the community may thus prevent less sensitive develop-
ment over which the community would not have a final say.

3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT

As communities grow, so too do their governments. Local govern-
ment growth often means changes in structure,.style of operations,
range of governmental services, and costs***. Only rarely will a
single development force a change in the structure of local govern-
ment. The cumulative effects of several developments may be signi-
ficant, however. Increased population may eventually lead to:

a. a shift from open to representative town meeting. Com-
munities over 15,000 population are likely to have representative
government (Table 6-3). Note, however, that local preferences can
delay that change: three towns over 30,000 population still have
open town meetings.

b. a shift from part-time lay administrators to full-time
professionals (executive assistants, town and city managers). The
majority of communities over 20,000 population have professional
administrators (Table 6-3).

c. increased bureaucracy.. As government organizations grow
they become more formal and compartmentalized. Citizens have less
access to officials. It becomes harder for people to sit down
together and work out problems informally on a first name basis.

d. public provision of services which could not have been
supported in a smaller community, such as public sewerage, solid
waste collection, major libraries, swimming pools, tennis courts,
skating rinks.

*Subsidized housing may include public hoLs ing constructed by a local
housing authority with subsidies from D.C.A., a mixed-income devel-
opment under the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, or subsid-
ized rents in some or all units of an apartment complex (through
federal "Section 8" assistance).
**Provisions are complex (sections 21-23, Ch. 40B, Mass. Gen. Laws),
but the State Housing Appeals Board can generally overturn a local
.rejection 0-fsubsidized housing if less than 10% of the community's
existing housing supply is subsidized.
***See "Fiscal Impacts", p. 86.

149 -

Table 6-3
GOVERNMENT STRUCTUREP 1975
Population, Number of % of municipalities with: % of municipalities with:
1975 Munici2alities Open TMa Re Councilb Manager or Exec. Assist.
0- 5,000 141 100 0 0 6
5-101000 63 95 3 2 22
.10-15)000 44 89 11 0 32
15-201000 29 55 31 14 45
20-25)000 15 33 60 7 73
25-30P000 15 13 67 20 73
1 30-35,000 11 18 37 45 55
@-j
01
0 35-40@000 8 12 25 63 25
40-60$000 12 0 25 75 17

aTM = Town Meeting
bCouncil City or Town Council

Sources: Massachusetts 1975 State Census; Massachusetts League of Cities and Towns,
Municipal Directory,. 1975-1976.

e. transfer of political power from "oldtimers" to "new-
comers". New residents are often very politically active and in-
volved in local government*. New residents may have different
values and different preferences for local spending.

4. AMENITIES

New development can affect community amenities in a number of
ways. Look for the following.

On-Site Services and Facilities for the General Public. A
shopping center may greatly increase the variety of stores easily
accessible to local residents. Proposals involving entertainment,
recreation, restaurants, professional services, specialty shops,
hospitals can make,a community a more convenient and rewarding
place to live.

Some residential developments also provide amenities for the
general public, such as golf courses, ski facilities, meeting halls,
trails, and preservedopen space. Density bonuses can be granted to
reward and encourage such amenities**.

Indirect Demand for Facilities, Services, and Organizations.
As a community grows it becomes able to support a much wider variety
of activities. New development (residences, universities, etc.)
may increase local population enough to support specialized shops,
services, religious, social and fraternal organizations.

Effect on Existing Amenities. Proposed development may be
located in the vicinity of (or aTop) cherished community assets:
woods, wetlands, meadows, cliffs, historic buildings and*areas,@**.
These amenities may be an important element in the character of the
community. Loss or damage to such amenities can be an important
cost of new development. Note, however, that such areas might be
threatened by development even if the proposal in question is turned
down.

Sensitive design is often the key for dealing with such areas.
Cluster development, for example, may allow natural features to be
preserved for open space. The alternative may be a large-lot sub-
division coveringthe entire site and destroying all its natural
features.

*New Jersey, Housing and Suburbs.
**See the new state zoning law, Chapter 40A, See. 9.
***Valuable natural areas are often identified in local conservation
plans. Some.historic buildings, sites, and landmarks have been
identified by the National Register of Historic Places, local and
regional historic commissions, the Massachusetts Historical Commis-
sion, and private organizations such as the Trustees of Reservations.

151

5. VISUAL QUALITIES

Increasingly., courts are recognizing aesthetics as a proper
area for public concern and exercise of power. Certainly, a major
concern often raised by new development is its appearance. Judging
it on that score is, however, not simple. We suggest two alter-
natives.

First., an overall visual policy might be developed, and the
proposal tested against that policy. Such policies are rare.
Martha's Vineyard has one which is widely recognized though not
legislatively adopted*. It provides a concrete basis for examining
the consistency of proposed siting, landscaping, colors, and
materials.

An alternative is establishment of a professionally skilled
design review panel, whether given formal powers or not. Such a
panel could probably provide insight into the visual consequences
of the proposal, and into how design modification could help the
proposal to better serve the community.

Ad hoc lay judgment of visual impact, without prestated cri-
teria and without professional assistance, is of questionable value
and fairness, since-visual consequences are seldom obvious, and there
are few universally applicable "rules", other than that things hid-
den from view by topography or trees aren't likely to be offensive.

6. COMMUNITY IRAGE

How will the proposal affect-the perception of the community
by-residents and outsiders? Major new development can alter a com-
munity's image substantially, sometimes to such an extent that the
development comes to symbolize the community. Examples in Massachu-
setts include the Patriots' Stadium in Foxboro, recent apartment
complexes in Framingham, New Seabury cluster development in Mashpee,
Yankee Atomic in Rowe, and the U. Mass. expansion at Amherst.

Developments which are very large, visually prominent, or very
different from the nearby area can substantially alter the image of
the neighborhood or community. Such changes are important in three
ways. They affect how residents feel about the community. This in
turn affects their future investments: how likely they are to im-
prove and maintain their properties, how likely they are to move
elsewhere. Finally, the community image influences outsiders who.
might come to the community to visit, to live, to establish busi-
nesses.

*Vineyard Open Land Foundation, Looking at the Vineyard, West
Tisbury: V.O.L.F., 1973.

152

CHAPTER 6A

SOCIAL IMPACTS OF DRUM HILL REZONING

Social impacts of Drum Hill rezoning are not likely to be very
critical. A regional shopping center would not bring new residents
to the town (with their effects on population, housing and town
government). Moreover, Drum Hill Road is already developed com-
mercially. Following are possible social impacts, none very sur"
prising. A regional shopping center would:

a. substantially increase the range of shops and services
easily accessible to Chelmsford residents. Residents wouldn't have
to drive to Burlington.

b. become a locus of community and regional activity. The
center will be a public meeting place where people run into each
other, hang out, eat.. Such centers often attract large numbers of
teen-agers and elderly who.spend large Amounts of free time there.*
Parents'. teachers, teen-agers, and shopping center managers may
differ in their views of whether such a youth hang-out is good or
bad.

C. affect Chelmsford's image, certainly for outsiders and
possibly for residents. People will think of Chelmsford not only
as a residential town but as a major commercial center. Examples:
Burlington, Natick, Braintree. This may be good or bad, depending
on one's point of view, and can be reinforced or diminished by the
name given to the center.

d. probably have minor visual impacts on the Drum Hill area.
Visual effects depend on the detailed design, of course, which
hasn't been prepared,but the site is already scarred by gravel
operations, the mall would be set back a considerable.distance from
existing roads, would be in a low area,.and would be-b6hind exist-
ing stores and parking lots.

NOTE: Impacts described in earlier chapters (increased traffic,
lower taxes, more jobs) naturally affect the quality of life and
social character.

Industrial development would probably have little social.impact
on the community, although (depending on the specific development)
it might induce some workers to move into Chelmsford.

*"The Malls: Social Spots for Young, Old", Boston Globe,
F6bruary 13, 1976, page 1.

153

SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following sources may be useful for development impact
analysis. Sources are organized by chapter of this guidebook;
in addition, some references for environmental studies are listed
at the end. Items we think particularly useful are asterisked.

Other documents provide valuable background information spe-
cific to each city and town. These include:

a. Municipal Reports: annual reports, Master Plans, public
facility studies, etc,.; .

b. Regional Planning Agency studies;

C. State reports on each community: the Department of Com-
merce and Development is planning to issue a new set of "profiles"
for each city and town, serving a function like that of the old
"Monographs". The Office of State Planning is compiling a "His-
torical Data Package" for each city and town, with information on
population, employment and land use in 1950, 1960, and 1970. Both
sets of reports are due to be published in 1976.

CHAPTER 1 PROCESS OF IMPACT ANALYSIS

Angotti, Thomas, Diane Joubert, Ann Preston, "Impact Analysis:
Science or Art?", Massachusetts Department of Community
Affairs, Office of Municipal Planning and Management, 1975.

Crouch, R.L., and R.E. Weintraub, "Cost-Benefit Analysis of a
PUD!.', Urban Land, June, 1973.

Gruen, Gruen and Associates, The Impacts of Growth, An Analytical
Framework and Fiscal Example, San Francisco: California Better
Housing Foundation, 1972.

Herr Associates,, "Social and Economic Impact, the Crumpin-Fox
Development, Bernardston, Mass.", prepared for the Franklin
County Planning Department, revised July, 1974. Illustrates
-citizen involvement in an impact study.

*Schaenman, Philip and Thomas Muller, Measuring_Im_pacts of Land
Development, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1974. The
best single work on impact analysis. Useful for all chapters
in this guidebook, suggesting measures and general study ap-
proaches. Available for $2.95 from the Publications Office,
the Urban Institute, 2100 M Street N.W., Washington, DC 20037
(refer to publication "URI 8600011).

- 154 -

Quantitative Decision Methods

For those who find them useful, the following technical refer-
ences suggest quantitative methods for weighting impacts and con-
sidering their timing and uncertainty.

Dacy, Douglas, Robert Keunne, and Martin McGuire, Agproaches to the
Treatment of Incommensurables in Cost-Benefit-Ana-lxsis, prepared
for the National Science Foundation by the Institute for Defense
Analysis, Program Analysis Division, Arlington, Virginia, 1973.

Eckstein, Otto, Water-Resources Development: The Economics of Pro-
ject Development, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.
The classic on cost-benefit analysis.

Friend, J.K., and W.N. Jessop, Local Government and Strategic.Choice,
London: Tavistock Publicat@ions, 1969. Pages 177-193 illustrate
a method for weighting preferences of diverse interest groups.

Hinrichs, Harley and Graeme Taylor, eds., Program Budgeting and
Benefit-Cost Analysis, Pacific Palisades, California: Good-
year, 1969.

Raiffa, Howard, DecisionAna-ly-sis, Introductory Lectures on Choices
Under Uncertainty, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

Schermes, Julie Hetrick, ?'Interest Group Assessment in Transporta-
tion Planning", Traffic Quarterly, January, 1975.

Van Horne, James, Financial Management and Policy, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. See discussion on present value
analysis.

CHAPTER 2 TRAFFIC IMPACTS

Traffic Generation Data

Abend, Norman, "Traffic Generation of Residential Land Use", memo
for Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs, September 28,
1973.

Buttke, Carl, "An Approximation of Regional Shopping Center Traffic",
Traffic Engineering, April, 1972.

Edwards & Kelcey, Central Corridor Traffic Study, for Massachusetts
Department of Public Works, Boston, 1965.

Hansen, Dennis, Volume XV Travel Generation, National Association of
County Engineers Action Guide Series, Washington, D.C.: National
Association of Counties Research Foundation, July, 1972. Sug-
gests approaches and issues for traffic studies; summarizes
national traffic generation data. Available free from Planning
Procedures Branch HHP24, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC 20590.

155

Herr Associates, "Performance Zoning III', for Franklin County Plan-
ning Department and Massachusetts Department of Community
Affairs, June, 1972. See Traffic/Lot Size Analysis.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Committee 5N-S, "Guidelines for
Driveway Design and Location", Traffic Engineering, February,
March, and April, 1973. Summarizes national traffic generation
data and suggests how to estimate traffic from a proposal.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Ohio Section, "Trip Generation Study
Provides Useful Preliminary Data", Traffic Engineering, March,
1974.

Keefer, Louis, and David Witheford, Urban Travel Patterns for Air-
ports, Shopping Centers and Industrial Plants, Washington, D.C.:
Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council, 1966.

*Maricopa Association of Governments, Trip Generation by Land Use,
Part 1: A Summary of Studies Conducted, Maricopa Co., Arizona,
April, 1974. The most useful summary of traffic generation
studies from around the country. Limited number of copies
available free from Planning Procedures Branch HHP24, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC 20590.

Martha's Vineyard Commission, "Table of Regional Traffic Generators"
Oak Bluffs: M.V.C., October, 1975.

Shaw, Robert, "Traffic Generation and Fast Food Restaurants",
Traffic Engineering, March, 1975.

Smith, Wilbur and Assoc., Patterns of Car Ownership, Trip Generation
and Trip Sharing in Urbanized Areas, New Haven: 1968.

Other Traffic References

Highway Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 1965, Special Report
87, Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council, 1966. Technical method for estimating capacity
and level of service.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Technical Committee 5DD, "Guidelines
for Planning and Designing Access Systems for Shopping Centers"..
Traffic Engineering, January and February, 1975.

Institute of Traffic Engineers, Traffic Engineering Handbook, rev.
edition August, 1975.

Lynch, Kevin, Site Planning, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1971, pp. 118-156.

Massachusetts Department of Public Works, 111974 Traffic Volumes",
(updated periodically). Data mainly for state highways.

Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers and
National Association of Home Builders, "Residential Streets:
Objectives, Principles and Design Considerations", 1974.

156

CHAPTER 3 FISCAL IMPACTS

General Methods

Angotti, Thomas, Diane Joubert and Anne Preston, "Impact Analysis:
Science or Art?", Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs,
Office of Municipal Planning and Management, 1975.

Connecticut Development Group, Inc., Cost Revenue Impact Analysis
for Residential Developments, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development, 1974.

Mace, Ruth, Municipal Cost-Revenue Research in the United States:
A Critical Survey of Research to Measure Municipal Costs and
Revenues in Relation to Land Uses and Areas: 1933-1960, Chapel
Hill, N.C.: Institute of Government, University of North
Carolina, 1961.

*MullerY Thomas, Fiscal Impacts of Land Development, A Critique of
Methods and Review of Issues, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute,
1975. Useful recent discusoion'-of methods and issues. Avail-
lable for $2 *95 from Publications Office, the Urban Institute,
2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037 (refer to publica-
tion as "URI 9800011).

Case Studies

Adam s, Howard, and Opperman, "Comprehensive Development Plan, Town
of Lincoln", 1965.

Boston Municipal Research Bureau and ABT Associates, The-Effect of
High Density Development on Municipal Finances in the City of
Boston, Boston April, 1974. Detailed comparison of several
residential and non-residential sections of Boston.

Brookline Planning Department, "Residential Cost-Revenue Analysis",
July, 1973. Comparison of several residential neighborhoods.

Gruen, Gruen and Associates, The Impacts of Growth, An Analytical
Framework and Fiscal Example, San Francisco: California Better
Housing Foundation, 1972.

Houston, Susan Levine, "The Costs and Revenues Generated by Low and
Moderate Income Housing in the Suburbs: A Study of Newton",
unpublished Master of City Planning Thesis, MIT, 1972. Item
by item analysis of service costs.

Levin, Michael, "Cost-Revenue Impact Analysis: State of the Art",
Urban Land, June, 1975.

Mace, Ruth, and Warren Wicker, "Do Single-Family Homes Pay Their
Way?", Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute (research mono-
graph 15), 1968.

157

Muller, Thomas, and Grace Dawson, Fiscal Impact of Residential and
Commercial Development, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1972.

Stephens, George, "Fiscal Impact Model for Land Development: A Case
Study". Urban Land, June, 197 5.

Stuart, Darwin and Robert Teska, "Who Pays for What?", Urban Land,
March, 1971.

Background Data

Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, "Financial Statistics of
Massachusetts, Including State, Counties, Cities, Towns, Dis-
tricts and Authorities" (annual). Shows debt, debt ratios, etc.

Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs, Office of Code
Development, "Number and Value of Building Permits" (monthly).
For estimating current number of dwellings in community.

Massachusetts Department of Corporations and Taxation, Bureau of
Local Assessment, Assessed and Equalized Valuations by Land
Use for Each City and Town (unpublished).

Massachusetts Department of Corporations and Taxation, Bureau of
Planning and Research, Amount of Chapter 70 School Aid and
Other State Aid to Each City and Town (from each year's
"Cherry Sheet")(unpublished).

Massachusetts Department of Education, Research, Planning and
Evaluation Division, "Analysis of School Aid to Massachusetts
Cities and Towns, Chapter 70 Amended"Jannual). Shows Ch. 70
school aid percentage for each community.

*Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, "Municipal Financial Data,
Including 1976 Tax Rates" (annual). Lists current tax rates,
levies, assessments for each community. Available free from
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, I Federal Street, Boston,
02110.

Sternlieb, George and Robert Burchell, "The Numbers Game: Fore-
casting Household Size", Urban Land, January, 1974. Estimates
.school children by type of unit and number of bedrooms based
on extensive New Jersey survey.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing_: 1970, Vol. I Housing
Characteristics for States, Cities and Counties; Part 23
Massachusetts, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1972. Indicates number of dwellings in each community
in 1970.

158

Potential Changes in Massachusetts Fiscal Structure

Eisenmenger, Robert, Alicia Munnell and Joan Poskanzer, Options tor
Fiscal Structure Reform in Massachusetts, Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston Research Report 57, March, 1975. Describes
current fiscal system and possible changes.

Herr Associates'. "Revenue Analysis" for Ashland Finance Committee,
revised December 11, 1972. Analyzes local tax impacts of
development under different assumptions about the future. of the
state fiscal system.

CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACTS

General References

DeChiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman, Manual of Housing, Planning and
Design Criteria, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

DeChiara, Joseph and Lee Koppelman, Planning Design Criteria,.New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1969.

Goodman, William and Eric Freund, Principles and Practices of
Urban Planning,.Washington, D.C.: International City Managers
Association, 4th Edition, 1968, Chapter 8.

Lynch, Kevin, Site Planning, Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1971.

Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 1974. Includes
extensive bibliography.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Environmental Health Guide, Washington, D.C., 1962.

Schools

Herr Associates, "School Facilities Plan",.prepared for Clinton
Planning Board and Massachusetts Department of Community
Affairs, March 18, 1971. Method for school construction
planning based on alternative assumptions about future enroll-
ments.

Massachusetts Department of Education, Bureau of Research and Assess-
ment, "Enrollment Projections for Public Schools in Massachu-
setts, 1975-1979", October, 1975.

159

Recreation

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Massachu-
setts Outdoor Recreation Plan, January, 1973. Discusses sta
and regional demand for various recreational activities.

National Recreation and Park Association, "Outdoor Recreation Space
Standards", New York, 1965.

Water

Bond, Richard and Conrad Straub, ed., CRC Handbook of Environmental
Controls, Volume III Water SupplZ and Treatment, Cleveland:
CRC Press, 1972. Collection of tables from various water
studies.

Insurance Services Office, "Guide for Determination of Required
Fire Flow", New York: I.S..O., 1974.

Linaweaver, F.P., John Geyer an.dJerome Wolff, "A Study of Resi-
dential Water Use", for U.S. Federal Housing Administration,
Washington, D.C., 1967. Careful nationwide study. .

Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Annual Water Consump-
tion by Municipality (unpublished).

Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment,
Disposal, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

New England River Basins Commission, How to Guide Growth in South-
eastern New England, Boston: N.E.R.B.C., May, 1975.

Sewage

Massachusetts Department of Pub-lic Health, State Sanitary Code,
Article XI, Minimum Requirements for the Dis20sal of Sanitarz
Sewage.;@:, in Unsewered Areas, 1966. (currently being revised)

Massachusetts Federation of Planning Boards, Planners Handbook,
Braintree: M.F.P.B., revised 1975. See Appendix S: "Guide for
Lot Size Determination for Single-Family Dwellings".

Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment,
Disposal, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

Tabors, Richard, Peter Rogers and Michael Shapiro, Land Use and
the Pipe: The Impact of Sewer-EX--tension on Land Use, Lexington,
Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., to be published,
1976. Discusses related issue of how sewers spur further
development.

160

Storm Drainage

.Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers and
National Association of Home Builders, "Residential Storm
Water Management - Objectives, Principles and Design Consider-
ations", 1975. Valuable discussion emphasizing on-site storage
and site design rather than major public systems. Available
for $7.50 (non-members.) from the Urban Land Institute,
1200 18th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036.

Solid Waste

Bond, Richard and Conrad Straub, ed., CRC Handbook of Environmental
Control, Volume III Solid Waste, Cleveland: CRC Press, 1972.
Collection of tables from various solid waste generation
studies.

Raytheon Service Co., Solid Waste Management Study Report for
Massachusetts Department of Public Works, 1972. Extensive,
3-volume statewide study of solid waste generation and alter-
native disposal methods.

Other Facilities

American Library Association, Public Library Association, "Interim
Standards for. Small Public Libraries: Guidelines Towards
Achieving Goals of Public Library Service", Chicago, 1962.

CHAPTER 5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Employment Impacts
Boston Economic Development and Industrial Commission, "Boston's
Industry", 1970. @Survey of existing Boston manufacturers, in-
cluding square feet per employee.

Boston Redevelopment Authority, "Jobs for Boston's Future -
Expanding the City's Economic Base Through Capital Investment
Mayor Kevin White's Program", November, 1975. Estimates of
construction and permanent jobs in potential development.

Building Construction Cost Data 1976, Duxbury, Mass.: Robert Snow
Means Co., 1975. Construction costs per square foot.

Hyun, David Kyun ed., Preliminary Cost Guide, Complete System fo
Total Project Development, Pasadena, Calif.: Architectural
'Bata Corporation, 1974. Construction costs per square foot.
A
*Massachusetts Division of Employment Security, "Employment and
Wages in Establishments Subject to the Massachusetts Employ-
ment Security Law" (annual). Number of employees who work
in each city and town.

161

Massachusetts Division of Employment Security, @Estimates of Labor
Force and Unemployment Rates for Each City and-Town (unpub-
lished; compiled monthly).

Massachusetts Division of Employment Security, "Massachusetts
Trends in Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment" (monthly).
Data for labor market areas, not for individual communities.

Massachusetts Office of State Planning, 1970.U. S. Census data on
jobs, labor force, and commuting for each city and town
(unpublished).

1976 Dodge Construction System Costs, New York: McGraw-Hill In-
formation Systems Co,, 1975. -Construction costs per square
foot.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Poi2ulation: 1970, Detailed
Characteristics, Final Report PCCI)-D23 Massachusetts,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, ID72.
Type of jobs by industry, etc.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, General
Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC(l)-C23
Massachusetts, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1972. Data on occupations, income, journey to work,
etc., by community.

Business Opportunities

Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Travel Administration,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, The Economic Impact
of Tourism on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for the
Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development, Decem-
ber, 1974. Provides "multipliers" for estimating indirect
effects of a:new activity on the state economy; see pages
65-83, 149-161. Quite technical.

Hellman, Daryl, "External Impacts.of Housing Developments: Cal-
culating Effects on Commercial Property Values"., Urban Land,
October, 1974. Elaborate method for projecting retail sales
due to new residents.

Herr Associates, "Retailing in Andover", prepared for Andover
Planning Board, July 3, 1975. Projects local retail sales
due to residential growth. T

Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development, Industrial
Directory_ of Massachusetts Manufacturers, 1974-1975 edition.
Lists current manufactueres in each city and towii, suggesting
potential suppliers (if any) for new;firms.

162

Urban Land Institute, Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.L.I., 1975. Lists sales per square foot by type
of store.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census.of Retail Trade,1972, Area
Series, Massachusetts, R072-A-22, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1974.

Other Economic Issues
Blumenfeld, Hans, "The Economic Basis of the Metropolis, Critical
Remarks on the Basic-Nonbasic Concept", Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, 1955.

Harrison , Bennett, Economic Development of Massachusetts, for
Joint Committee on Commerce and Labor of the Massachusetts
Legislature, 1974. Challenges many common assumptions about
state economic needs and development approaches.

Sweet, David, "The Systematic Approach to Industrial Development
Research", Urban Land, June, 1970.

Ullman, Edward, Michael Dacey, Harold Brodsky, The Economic Base
of American Cities, Seattle: University of Washington, Center
for Urban and Regional Research, revised 1971. Survey, mainly
for larger cities.

CHAPTER 6 SOCIAL IMPACTS

Population

Gans, Herbert, "The Balanced Community: Homogeneity or Hetero-
geneity in Residential Areas", Journal of the American Insti-
tute of Planners, August, 1961. Classic article on advantages
and disadvantages of a diverse population living in a community.

Massachusetts Secretary ofthe Commonwealth, 1975 State Census.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housi 1970, Components of
Inventory Change, Final Report HC(4)-3, Boston, Mass. SMSA,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
Characteristics of occupants in new and older units in the
Boston metropolitan area.

U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census-of Population: 1970, G neral
.Population Characterig-tics,,Final Report PC(l)-B23 Massachu-
setts, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census..of Population: 1970, General
Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report_PC(l)-C23
Massachusetts, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1972. Incomes, occupations, many other characteris-
tics.

163

Housing

Dorchester-Columbia Point Task Force (with assistance of Justin
Gray Associates), "Report on the Impact of U. Mass. in Dor-
chester", Boston, January, 1973. Case study, emphasizes
housing impacts in surrounding neighborhood.

Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs, 1_974 Report on
Housing Needs_and Programs. Table 7 shows housing needs
estimates foreach city and town (based on 1970 U.S. Census).

U. S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1970, Vol. I Housing
Characteristics for States, Cities and Counties, Par
Massachusetts, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1972..

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FHA Economic and
Market Analysis Division, FHA Techniques of Housing Market
Analysis, Washington, D.C.: HUD, revised 1970.

Other Social Impacts

Keller, Suzanne, The Urban Neighbcrhood: A Sociological Pers pective,
New York: Random House, 1968. Discussion of sociability in
residential neighborhoods.

Massachusetts League of Cities and Towns, '11975-1976 Massachusetts
Municipal Directory", Boston: M.L.C.T., 1975. Lists govern-
ment structure for each city and town.

New Jersey County and Municipal Government Study Commission, Housing
& Suburbs: Fiscal and Social Impact of Multi-Family Develop-
ment, Trenton, N.J., October, 1974. Comprehensive discussion
of social impacts and community attitudes toward a.partments.

Proshansky, Harold, William Ittelson and Leanne Rivlin, eds.,
Environmental Psychology: Man.and His Physical Setting, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. General reader on
psychic and social effects of one's environment.

"Report of the Apartment Impact Study Committee", for the Burlington,
MA Planning Board, March 15, 1973. Includes survey of resi-
dents' attitudes toward recent apartment developments.

Stanford Research Institute, City Size and the Quality of Life,
for National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1974. National comparisons, mainly of
larger cities.

Vineyard Open Land Foundation, "Looking at the Vineyard, A Visual
Study for a Changing Island", West Tisbury: V.O.L.F., 1973.
Example of general visual guidelines for new development.

164

SOURCES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Burchell, Robert, and David List.okin, The Environmental Impact
Handbook, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, Center
for Urban Policy Research, 1975.

California Council of Civil tmgineers and Land Surveyors, Environ-
mental Impact Analysis,, Sacramento, 1972.

Herman, Barbara, "Environmental Review Team", AIP Planners Notebook,
February, 1975.,

Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, Environmental Impact
Statements: A Handbook for Writers and Reviewers, Urbana-
Champagne, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois, August, T97-3 (distributed
by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C.).

Keyes,'Dale L., Land Development and the Natural Environment:
Estimating Impacts, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, to be
published 1976.

Leopold, Luna, et al, A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental
Impact, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, "Environ-
mental Assessment Form Manual", December, 1975. Instructions
for filling out state environmental assessment forms.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, "Regula-
tions Governing the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Reports", October 6, 1975.

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, "Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements: Guidelines", Federal Register, August 1,
1973.

165

-COASTAL ZONLE
INFORMATION CENTER

00002 77 1