FAQs • Lexington, MA • CivicEngage

The presentation slides mentions that "multiple" applications for new development on Hartwell have been submitted. If it passes, would Article 17 apply to these applications?

There has been one new lab development approved for the area and the standard in the Article would not apply to it because it was submitted before the advertisement for the Public Hearing for the Article.

There have also been a handful of preliminary intentions submitted, however, there is not enough detail to know at this time if the preliminary intentions are going to definitively move forward or if they will be lab developments over 65 feet. However if they do move forward and they are tall lab developments, the standard in the Article would also not apply to them due to being submitted before the advertisement for the Public Hearing for the Article.

▼
2021-1 Special Town Meeting - Article 17

Show All Answers

1. Aside from the desirability of Lexington, are there more details that can be shared regarding the demand for lab space in Lexington and what impact passage of the Article may have?

In addition to Lexington being identified as a "Platinum BioReady Community", here is an explanation provided in the FAQs from the Clean Heat Lexington website:

Lexington currently has a requirement in the Traffic Demand Management Plan that is costing developers approximately three dollars per square foot and that is NOT deterring development. Data from buildings in the area that exceed the Article's standard show that Hybrid HVAC is, on average, cost neutral.
By meeting or exceeding the standard proposed in the Article, property owners have the added benefit of advertising their development as a very high performing, sustainable building, ready to meet our Town and State emission reduction goals.
The Globe recently covered that Moderna just leased a building with 15 Btu/h-sf of clean heat/heat pumps in the design "because it's the most sustainable commercial lab building in Cambridge". A lower emission building is going to be much easier to lease, especially to life science tenants.
Looking to the near future, developers seem to be taking notice of the risk of increasing gas prices and how developments that are less dependent on gas are lower risk. (Gas supply prices have more than doubled in the last year and will continue to rise, prices will be 30% more this winter compared to last winter).
It seems smart developers are going to hedge that risk, they are taking note that any building 100% dependent on gas is going to be a really hard building to lease as natural gas prices rise. We shouldn't want our developments on Hartwell to sit empty in 10 to 15 years because they are too costly to run.
A recent NYT article about investors seeking greener buildings included investors saying: "What has changed in recent years is the perception of risk associated with climate change, prompting investors to steer money toward safer, higher-performing green assets." and "Five to 10 years ago, there was a lot of debate about sustainability, that, 'It's nice, but I don't want to pay for it.' Today, you don't sacrifice returns for sustainability, you create returns with sustainability."
BOTH development investors and life science tenants want lower carbon buildings. Buildings built to standards that lower the emissions are going to be more attractive not less.

2. Are there clean energy zoning requirements / incentives in place for the areas where the buildings cited as industry best practices are located?

Full Question: Are there clean energy zoning requirements / incentives in place for the areas where the buildings cited as industry best practices (Boston Landmark, Cambridge Binney Street, and Boston Fenway II) are located? If so, are these requirements / incentives the same as what is proposed in Article 17?

Answer: Boston and Cambridge both have comprehensive Net Zero/Zero Carbon building assessment requirements. Neither have zoning incentives that allow for increased height or density with any specific emission-reducing/hybrid design requirement as in this Article.

3. The presentation slides mentions that "multiple" applications for new development on Hartwell have been submitted. If it passes, would Article 17 apply to these applications?