Back to Table of Contents

Housing

Introduction

The Housing section observes housing trends and determines housing need by comparing population characteristics with the currently available housing stock. This section relies on the methodology described below to devise housing recommendations that will be implemented to meet future growth in the community

This Chapter first examines the population characteristics within the town of Littleton. This analysis documents current conditions of age, income and family profile of the overall population. Population projections for future growth in town are also considered. The results of this analysis will lay the framework for assessment of the current housing stock while population projections will indicate the pace at which future addition to the housing stock can be expected.

This section will next analyze the housing stock currently existent in Littleton. Factors of age, relative condition and quantity of available housing, as related to residential income levels and household needs will be discussed. A detailed inventory of housing characteristics will be demonstrated by the use of charts and graphs that will not only explain current housing trends, but will also provide insights in order to direct future housing stock growth.

Future growth possibilities will be described and related to the findings of the build-out analysis in Chapter II, Land Use. Current zoning bylaws in the Town of Littleton will be assessed for applicability to future development. Future growth of the housing stock will also be related to other sections of this Master Plan including Open Space/Recreation, Circulation, and Resource Preservation, as appropriate. Possible application of alternative housing formats will be described and recommended where appropriate. While proposals for alternative forms of development, such as Planned Unit Developments, Back-lot Subdivisions and Garden Apartments often conflict with current zoning guidelines, they also are often not warmly greeted by the existing citizenry. Carefully administered alternative development can provide quality housing, at a reasonable cost, that reduces sprawl and preserves rural character, while simultaneously providing expanded housing options.

Statistical information sources utilized for this section, provided by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), include 1990 US Census figures and the Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER) population trends. Since the MISER population projection is based on 1990 data, an updated projection will be made based on current population data provided by town records. Also housing stock data will be updated with town records, where possible. Student population data provided by the Littleton School Department will also be reviewed to infer additional focus of the updated general population growth projection. Other data sources to be utilized in the development of this section include the Open Space and Recreation Plan of 1997, and the Town of Littleton Annual Reports.

Definitions

Definitions of terms used in reference to housing can be perceived to have varying meaning when used in general discussion, while specific federal, state or municipal descriptions may in fact define a very specific meaning. Frequently people in a community discussion are unable to communicate effectively because of the particular understanding that they hold for specific terminology. In order to enhance communication and in turn increase the effectiveness of the master planning process, several key words and terms used in the housing element of this Master Plan are defined:

The definition of affordable is derived from its use in the US Census. Housing is affordable when the specified selected housing costs for either ownership or rental is less than 30% of the total household income for that dwelling unit. Selected monthly owner cost is the sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts to purchase, or similar debts on the property (including payments for the first mortgage, second or junior mortgages, and home equity loans); real estate taxes; fire, hazard and flood insurance on the property; utilities (electricity, gas and water); and fuels. It also includes, where appropriate, the monthly condominium fee for condominiums and mobile home costs (personal property taxes, site rent, registration fees and license fees) for mobile homes. Rental cost is defined as the contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (electricity, gas and water) and fuels if they are paid for by the renter (or paid for the renter by someone else). Even an upper income individual can encounter housing costs in excess of this benchmark. The lower the household income the more likely the housing cost is to exceed 30%. The true objective in housing subsidy programs is typically to bring the housing cost down to 30% of the total household income.

This concept offers a supportive residential setting that maximizes the ability of elder residents to live independently by including various levels of housekeeping, personal care and meal services. This concept forestalls and/or reduces the need for costly nursing homes or institutionalization.

Residents of congregate housing share some common living space, such as a dinning room, but also have privacy, usually at least their own bedroom or suite. Physical arrangements of these facilities vary greatly. For instance, in a three or four bedroom congregate apartment, residents may share bathrooms, living room kitchen and meal preparation. In another situation, each resident may have an efficiency apartment with a half bathroom and kitchenette and share one meal a day in a main dining room. This type of arrangement works best for those who do not want to live alone or are unable to live alone without some form of assistance. Congregate living offers the social support of other residents and the assistance of a professional coordinator who facilitates group interaction and arranges services such as housekeeping, transportation and meals. Congregate housing is not a nursing home or medical care facility and does not offer continuous residential supervision.

Cooperative Housing is a form of corporate ownership. Individual buyers receive shares in a corporation that owns the facility or development. The number of shares is proportional to the value of the unit occupied. Each shareholder pays a pro rata portion of the facilities operating costs, real estate taxes, and mortgage payments. Cooperatives offer the income tax benefits of home ownership, and a number of financial advantages over condominiums due to its larger single entity.

The most used definition and that generally referred to unless otherwise noted is promulgated by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The median income of the metropolitan area is assumed to support a family of four. The fiscal year 1996 median income for the Boston PSMA is $56,500 as calculated by the Regional Economist, Boston Office, and US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Table 3‑ 1 HUD Low and Moderate Income Definitions – Boston PSMA

Income eligibility requirements for a family in various state and federal programs for low and moderate-income housing vary and adjustments are made for the number in the household.

The government payment of rent or mortgage, depending on the program, in order that the household outlay for housing cost is not greater that 30% of its total income.

Demographic Trends

It is important to gain an understanding of key characteristics of the population of a given community so that actions taken to enhance the quality of life achieve maximum benefit. Base census data is built upon with statistical and qualitative analysis to assess the best solutions in a world of many variables. Often times there will be several ways to analyze data that will yield slightly different results.

Much of the analysis is based on 1990 US Census data (Should we update with 2000 data). In some cases, inconstancies may exist with total numbers between different figures, because some census respondents did not answer all of the questions asked. In general, the proportions of each sample question are accepted as accurate. Although US Census data is 10 years old, it is the most in-depth information that is available and therefore, its use is necessary to attain an understanding of some of the more detailed household analysis. Where possible, more recent town provided data is also included. Since the Master Plan is regarded in planning circles as a “living document,” more current US Census data should be incorporated as it becomes available.

For the Town of Littleton, there exist two sources of population data, both of which are provided on the table below and discussed thereafter.

Table 3 ‑ 2 Population Projection

* Projected

Sources; Littleton Town Reports, DHCD, Kenneth M. Kreutziger AICP.

Population projections to the right were conducted by MISER, based on data collected for the 1990 US Census.

This projection is usually accepted as the most reliable base data from which to work, but its accuracy can vary. The Town of Littleton has the opportunity of maintaining a more recent, true number, account of the local population. The population counts, taken from town annual reports are true numbers derived from the town annual census. As can be observed there is some discrepancy between the two sources. Between 1980 and 1990 both sources, although different, show only modest growth. From 1990 on, town figures begin to show a more rapid growth rate. Since town figures are actual numbers, these are logically assumed more accurate for this part of the analysis. However, MISER figures must still be quantified with other parts of the DHCD analysis since it relies on US Census data.

Overall, there has been steady population growth throughout the decade averaging 1.4% per year, including the slight decline mid-way through the decade. Over this nine-year span, this amounts to a 14% growth in the population. While both methods show similar rates of growth in the town, local records indicate a considerably higher rate of growth than the statewide source. While both sources indicate growth, the discrepancy may serve to mask the communities’ actual rate of growth to organizations that regularly rely on the state data. The following chart helps to show the rate of growth in the Town of Littleton and utilizes both data sources.

Figure 3 ‑ 1 Population Projection Chart

Town sources are more sensitive to local population fluctuations and show Littleton’s growth to be more sporadic than the MISER 10-year analysis. With the passage of time, a greater difference has been developing between the two sources. Since most of the greatest population increases have occurred within the past 10 years, it can be expected that the 2000 US Census will correct this disparity.

Another valuable statistic is the population age distribution. Knowledge of this data gives the town a general idea of the number of people in the school age, middle age, and elderly segments of the population. This analysis can help to identify age groups of the Town population that may have certain needs, but who also have less direct influence on the community. The following charts and tables compare age distribution data in the Town of Littleton from the 1990 US Census and 1999 Town sources.

Figure 3 ‑ 2 US Census 1990 Residential Age Distribution Chart

Source; 1990 US Census.

Exact age distribution numbers are shown in the following table;

Table 3 ‑ 3 US Census 1990 Residential Age Distribution Table

Source; 1990 US Census.

The previous chart and table shows that in 1990, the biggest single segment of town population was between the ages 18 and 29 years. This would indicate that, at this time, this community suits younger adults who are likely starting families. This would also account for the small spike in numbers of children below the age of 5 years. In anticipation of the aging of this population segment, recent attention toward the development of new school facilities and playing fields has been appropriate. In 1990, school age children outnumbered persons over the age of 60 years.

The usual shape for an age distribution chart is a perfect triangular form. Interestingly, the middle category, ages 30-39 years shows a slight dip. This may have been a reflection of a growth trend where new young families were moving into town at a faster rate than other segments of the population.

The reduction of residents older than 50 often indicate the existence of a limited number of housing opportunities in the community for seniors and families after their children leave home. While population cohorts younger than 50 years of age have been growing due to the influx of new residents, population cohorts over 50 years were remaining the same or perhaps even decreasing. As the trend toward the construction of larger new homes continues, this could indicate a potential need for smaller homes. These homes could be attached, sited on smaller lots, or clustered in some alternate form of residential development.

Table 3 ‑ 4 Town Census 1999 Residential Age Distribution Chart

Source; 1999 Town Census

Table 3 ‑ 5 Town Census 1999 Residential Age Distribution Table

Source; 1999 Town Census

It has been beneficial for town officials to track community-wide population changes with respect to age distribution. This practice allows for better analysis of more discrete changes in the community population profile.

One of the most notable comparisons to be made is that the 18-29 segment of the population shows a significant decline. This may be indicative of climbing property values and diminishing lower cost housing options for young single adults and newer families. A shortage of people in this age segment also may explain the difficulties encountered by the Fire Department and other community organizations in the recruitment of volunteers.

Population cohorts between the ages or 30 and 49 are now the largest group. As inferred by 1990, Census data, the bulk of the community workforce is still vital and can be expected to remain so for the next 10 years. However, in consideration of decreases in the 18-29 year old segment, the more distant future is uncertain in this regard.

As shown on the following table, the over 60 population in town has been growing at a faster rate.

Table 3 ‑ 6 1990-1999 Population Cohort Growth Characteristics

Source; 1990 US Census, 1999 Town Census

From 1990 to 1999, the general population has grown by about 12 percent, while the 60 and over population has grown at over twice the average rate. This is reflective of the known trend of the aging national population. This recent cohort growth has probably been supported by some new, more modest home development, in addition to more prosperous seniors who maintain larger homes with little or no mortgage payments.

Overall, the population in Littleton appears to be aging. Currently, school facility needs are met and the working population has many productive years ahead. However, the community should be aware that new entrants into the workforce in the community are declining in number. It may be prudent to consider incentives that would change this trend.

Information is available that identifies the characteristics of households in the community. A household is defined as some number of people, not necessarily related, who have taken up residence in a home, apartment unit or self sufficient part of a multi-family dwelling comprised of a single common kitchen, some number of bathrooms, bedrooms and common living space. Household data gives clues as to what type of future residential development may be most appropriate in the community. Littleton’s household characteristics are based on 1990 US census data and are defined in the following tables.

Table 3 ‑ 7 Number of Households

Source; 1980 US Census, 1990 US Census, 2000 US Census

The table above shows that the total number of households has increased by over 14 percent from 1980 to 1990; followed by a 19.2% increase in the last decade. This percent change is greater than the 1980 to 1990 increase in total population. This is reflective of the trend in decreasing family size. According to the 1990 Census average household size in the Littleton is 2.69 persons. In addition, according to the census, households in Littleton are comprised as shown in the following table.

Table 3 ‑ 8 Household Composition

Source; 1990 US Census

The table above shows that almost two-thirds of all households in Littleton are comprised of a married couple with or without children. The second most common form of household, just over one-quarter of all households, is comprised of non-married individuals, most likely younger people in roommate/housemate situations. This arrangement is often a function of financial need on the part of the participants and can sometimes be more transient than other household types. A single parent heads slightly less than 10 percent of all households in Littleton. This type of household can often benefit more than other types from a stronger network of social support, such as more flexible after school programs.

Income distribution of households gives an indication of the degree of overall affluence in the community and can help show what type of housing may be most desirable at the current time. The table below shows the actual figures, while the chart to follow better shows the proportional difference between the categories:

Table 3 ‑ 9 Household Income Distribution

Source; 1990 US Census

Figure 3 ‑ 3 Household Income Distribution Chart

Source; 1990 US Census

The chart and table show two spikes in the household income distribution. By far, the biggest spike is in the $50,000 to $74,999 range. Most households in this category are probably comprised of families with two professionally employed adults. This category is almost twice the size of the next nearest category and represents over 30 percent of the total household population. This is the biggest segment of the housing market that needs to be accommodated.

The second, and smaller spike, is in the $10,000 to $24,999 range. This category is probably comprised mostly of younger working singles, single working parents, or the elderly on a fixed income. This group may be having difficulty finding affordable housing in town.

The median annual household income information is shown on the following table;

Table 3 ‑ 10 Median Household Income

Source; 1990 US Census

The median is defined as the midpoint in the range of a set of values. The median income figure of $51,606 for Littleton helps pinpoint the overall income status of the community as being at the lower end of the dominant $50,000 to $74,999 household income distribution bracket, shown in Figure III-8. Littleton median income is ranked the 58th highest out of the 351 communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This figure indicates that the community is in the top 16th percentile in terms of income. The table also shows that average household income in Littleton is over 139 percent of the state average of annual household income.

This section studies the characteristics of the existing housing stock. An analysis of housing characteristics in Littleton includes information about total numbers, occupancy status and rates, dwelling units per structure and age of structure. Data is primarily based on 1990 census but more recent data will be used to gain a more accurate picture. Housing unit data is catalogued on the table below.

Table 3 ‑ 11 Housing Units Occupied

Source; 1990 US Census.

This table shows that in 1990 over 76 percent of all dwelling units in town were owner occupied, while about 19 percent were renter occupied. Most units in town are detached, single family dwellings where relatively stable income and lifestyles favor home ownership. The table includes data to show that according to town sources, there are no seasonal homes in Littleton. At one time Littleton hosted numerous seasonal homes, but the evolutionary process of seasonal to year-round conversions has been completed in the community. This means that additional demands on town services and schools as a result of home conversions no longer needs to be anticipated.

Table 3 ‑ 12 Type of Structure

Source; 1990 US Census & Town Building Permit Data

The number of dwelling unit types is shown in Table 3 ‑ 12 . This demonstrates the overwhelming numbers of single-family units over other housing types. Building permit data from 1991 to 1997 has been added to the 1990 census data. The “New Percent of Total” column shows the proportional increase in the popularity of single-family home construction. No other types of dwelling unit building permits were issued during this period and therefore these other types of units are decreasing.

Table 3 ‑ 13 Year Structure Built

Source; 1990 US Census & *Town Building Permit Data

Table 3 ‑ 13 shows the rate at which new units are added to the housing stock with each passing decade. The 1950’s, a period known for suburbanization, was the most active decade, averaging almost 80 new units per year. The second busiest decade was the period 1980-1989 averaging 63 new units yearly. The annual average of residential building permits issued between 1990 and 1999 is 52, which represents a decrease over the previous decade, which was known for economic growth and suburban development. Municipal service providers have noticed that development in town has been occurring at a more rapid pace in the past few years. The table below shows the varying rate of residential building permit permits issued for each year from 1990 to 1999. While the issuance of a building permit does not guarantee that the subsequent construction had taken place, this is still a good indicator of the general pace of development.

Table 3 ‑ 14 Single Family Building Permits Issued, 1990-1999

Source; Town Building Permit Data

The following table shows the value distribution of homes in Littleton. Home valuation data is based on 1990 figures and while exact values may not be up to date, it will give an indication of the relative value profile of homes in town.

Table 3 ‑ 15 Home Valuation

Source; 1990 US Census

In 1990 the median home valuation was $178,100. The concurrent typical selling prices for homes are usually significantly higher in this market. This disparity between valuation and typical selling price is because home valuations are made for tax purposes, and tend to be conservative estimates. Homes located in desirable areas can often sell for well above the most current valuations. In addition, census provided valuations are nearly a decade old and home values have increased considerably since that time. However, the above information still provides a base of home value data that gives some indication of the distribution of home values. In 1990 only about one-quarter of all homes in Littleton were valued below $150,000. At the same time over one-third of all homes were valued above $200,000. In consideration of the recent increase in home values and the general trend towards larger new homes, it is reasonable to conclude that lower cost homes are difficult to find in Littleton.

An informal interview with a local real estate agent has provided some more recent figures for contemplation. In February of 2000, the Realtor provided a list of homes currently for sale in Littleton. The average asking price for all homes listed was $321,100. The Realtor believed that lower cost homes in Littleton are in short supply. Of the 28 homes listed, only 6, or just over one quarter of all homes listed, had an asking price below $200,000. The Realtor also stated that most new home construction in Littleton is in the $375,000 to $450,000 range. The Realtor characterized the most common homebuyer in Littleton as younger high tech employed couples with children, looking for a good environment in which to raise their family.

All municipalities need to consider ways to accommodate each individual who wishes to live in, and contribute to that community. Many respected and established townspeople can have specialized housing needs that arise or change over time. A community should be able to respond by offering a diverse mix of alternatives.

A major housing concern that communities need to address is the aging of the general population. With the coming decades, much of the national population, along with many of the established citizens of Littleton, will require housing that they can find manageable and affordable. Farmhouses and historic homes in town were built at a time when a large family was an asset to the agricultural practices. With the current trend toward smaller families (2.69 persons in Littleton, in 1990), those family homes are now sometimes maintained by individuals whose children have grown and moved to other communities, or to other homes in the same community. As those individuals age, that burden and expense of maintaining a large home can become overwhelming. For some of those individuals, more manageable, less expensive housing will become a necessity.

There is a limited number of smaller, lower cost, easier to maintain housing alternatives in Littleton. An informal local Realtor survey has revealed that there is a shortage of housing options available to “empty nesters”, individuals or couples with adult children that have moved on to start their own households. In some cases, these older couples are in upper income brackets and in search of more luxurious condominiums. Unless these needs are met, the coming years could potentially see life-long residents of the community with no option but to seek housing in other towns.

At the time this document was prepared, there are 114 units of housing specifically dedicated toward the mobile but aging population. Elderly housing is available at three locations around town. All housing units are apartments with one bedroom per unit. Each of these complexes is available only for independent living, where the management provides no services. Elderly housing available in Littleton is shown on the following table.

Table 3 ‑ 16 Elderly Housing

Source; 1999, Littleton Housing Authority.

Informal interviews with the management of each of the complexes shown in Table 3 ‑ 16 have revealed that all a waiting list for apartments of up to 50 persons and of at least one to over 2 years. All of the entities interviewed agree that there is a need for more housing of this type. Interviewees also indicated an additional need for housing types where varying degrees of assistance would be available to residents.

According to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), in 1993, Littleton had an aggregate number of 240 subsidized housing units. The DHCD also states that this amount equals about 9 percent of the housing stock, which counts towards the 10 percent goal for low and moderate income housing, as determined by the Commonwealth. Subsidized housing in this case refers to both subsidized affordable units as well as market rate units in certain eligible subsidized developments. According to town sources, no new subsidized units have been added since 1993, and thus, the proportional amount of housing to be credited toward the State goal has, in effect, decreased due to recent construction of more expensive homes. It can be roughly estimated that the decrease has been about 1 percent, if the number of single family building permits issued between 1993 and 1999 (280) are added to the DHCD estimated number of 2666 total housing units in 1993.

Overall, it is evident that additional housing for the elderly and less affluent members of the community may be needed. The proportion of housing recognized by the DHCD as affordable is decreasing, and waiting lists at elderly housing complexes can only be expected to grow longer in the near future.

Findings

Littleton’s housing stock is composed of various types ranging from groups of converted summer camps, and expansive colonial farmsteads to vast areas of modern tract homes. The latter housing type is becoming more prevalent. Lower cost housing options are becoming increasingly more difficult to find. Prospective new neighbors, as well as lifelong residents, hold Littleton’s historic and agrarian character in high regard. Current economic prosperity, coupled with our cultural preference for detached homes situated on spacious parcels of land can be expected to bring pressure on remaining open land, thereby further reducing remaining rural character. The result, while possibly supporting higher overall property values, will also bring homogeneity to the identity of the community as well as a smaller range of options to housing stock. It is this potential lack of diversity in the housing stock that will limit Littleton’s future character as well as the options available to those who hope to live in the community. The decrease in available housing options also challenges the limits of those life long residents whose needs change but still wish to remain in town.

The current issues extracted from the analysis performed in this housing element are listed as follows:

While single-family detached dwellings are and will remain the dominant form of housing in Littleton, alternatives need to be more seriously considered. It is unlikely most elderly, lifelong members of the community, the typical new family with a limited income or unmarried individuals who have a desire to remain in, or who wish to move into Littleton can afford to purchase or to own the typical newly built home. This trend appears to be decreasing the pool of individuals available to volunteer for the Fire Department as well as other volunteer dependent community activities. In addition to the initial expense, ongoing maintenance, grounds keeping and tax payments make single-family home ownership untenable to some. In order to accommodate a greater variety of persons who wish to participate in the community, other forms of housing need to be provided.

As demonstrated in the Land Use element of this Master Plan, open space in the community is quickly being converted to residential use. The high rate of conversion is due to the affects of current zoning on the cultural desire for detached single-family home ownership. Modifications to the current zoning bylaw are proposed in the Land Use section of this Plan to make less “land-hungry” housing alternatives more enticing to the developer. The fostering of good working relationships between developers, town officials and the community at large will show that a high quality of life can be expected from these new, more efficient, housing alternatives. The net result for the community will be a quality home-life for all in a town rich in individual character.

Master Plan research has revealed that there is a need for more housing in line with the needs of Littleton’s more senior residents. Interviews with representatives of all current elderly housing facilities report at least a 1-2 year wait for the new prospective tenant. All other community sources also acknowledged this need and implied that there would be firm support for new over age 55 and elderly housing proposals.

In order to insure the effectiveness of these new tools, close attention to detail will be necessary. Fruition of these proposals will call for ongoing good working relationships with involved developers, town officials and a participatory community. Iterative dialog will be necessary to bring consensus that will improve the results. Ratification of Land Use recommendations II-1 (Cluster by Right) and II-2 (Transfer of Developments Rights) are important in the implementation of a number of recommendations made below and are noted where appropriate.

Proposals and Recommendations

 v Update and Maintain Statistical Data

In general, a Master Plan is understood to be a living document that is modified and updated at regular intervals in order to reflect the changing needs of a community. Recently, the US Census Bureau has completed the data collection phase of the year 2000 census. Because the detailed information available from this census will not be available for some time, it has been necessary to base detailed population profile analysis in this element on 1990 population data. Fortunately some basic population profile data is tracked by the town, and it’s incorporation into the master plan has generally confirmed most inferences made by US Census data, while additionally demonstrating the increase of some trends, such as the decrease in the 18-29 population or the increase in the over 60 population. As the details of the year 2000 census become available, it would be prudent for the community to incorporate this information into the master plan to update the community profile

The “Planned Development Area” provision maintains the current zoning density existent, but it grants flexibility to setback and lot layout requirements. This would allow a design that is responsive to site specific concerns, such as natural features. While not altering ultimate density, this technique can be used to preserve rural character as well as create a closer neighborhood feeling. This provision works best with proposals of a minimum size of about 20 acres.

Littleton Common, Foster Street and King Street areas are places where infill development can establish a more cohesive neighborhood. Services are within walking distance and neighborhood character is already strong. Smaller vacant parcels that lie within and around the Village could be used to help diversify the town-wide housing stock through the construction of new homes on smaller lots, but only in cases where current septic needs can be met. Future sewerage or a septic system serving a group of smaller house lots where possible, will allow for the eventual development of remaining parcels. Tools and techniques including the village center zone provision, TDR (II-2), planned developments and the cluster-by-right provision (II-1), all as described above and in the Land Use element, can be used to create housing in these areas. In this scenario, design provisions that may be drawn up with the creation of the village center zone (II-4) will bring new homes that preserve and promote the historic neighborhood fabric. The ultimate value of these new homes will be dictated by community input, attention to detail and construction quality.

Within proposals for West Littleton Village and new development in the Nashoba area, opportunities exist to create good-quality homes that are smaller, easier to care for and less costly than the typical new home in Littleton. Inherent amenities also include walking distance connections to shopping, services and linked recreational opportunities.

Devise an ordinance that would provide extra incentives (such as higher densities) to the developer for the creation of an over-55 retirement community. Proper design of such a community can provide a less costly, high quality result for the in-demand housing type that is directed toward this specific segment of the housing market. Such a community can often provide amenities that fit the specific needs of this segment that would not otherwise be available to the typical resident. This provision can also benefit from TDR strategies (Land Use recommendation II-2) with a project of this type located in a “receiving area”.

The Commonwealth has recently enacted legislation that will support special low and moderate-income elderly housing construction in conjunction with the Community Preservation Act. Littleton presently has limited elderly housing options and analysis completed for this plan has shown an increasing local demand. If the community is poised to take action utilizing this legislation, new elderly housing can be provided soon at lower cost to the community.

Funds that will become available by the town approving a real property transfer surcharge of not more that 3% of the real estate tax, for the development of this type of housing may also enhance the implementation of other development scenarios described in this Master Plan. The needs and characteristics of elderly housing are ideally suited for Littleton Common infill and mixed-use area development discussed in the Land Use element. With regard to the acceptance of this proposal by adjacent residents, the elderly population in general make good neighbors in more dense settings and will likely help support the stabilization of proposed local commercial services.

Analysis conducted in this master plan regarding the amount of elderly housing in Littleton has shown that there is a need for more. Town officials and the community can take action to create additional housing of this type. While current facilities have been privately developed and managed, the community at large and the elderly in town can work together to explore all possible public/private arrangements that could bring new elderly housing to town.