Auburn, Massachusetts Master Plan, 2006

Transcription

Auburn, Massachusetts
Master Plan, 2006
Adopted by the Auburn Planning Board
February 28, 2006
With Technical Assistance by:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................................i
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Maps.....................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1: AUBURN 2020 VISION STATEMENT..................................................................1
Quality of Life ........................................................................................................................ 1
Tax Rates and Municipal Services.......................................................................................... 1
Environment, Recreation, and Open Space ............................................................................ 1
Economic Development.......................................................................................................... 2
Town Character and Form ...................................................................................................... 2
Housing................................................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND ZONING .....................................................................................4
Land Use ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Land Use Pattern................................................................................................ 4
Land Use Change: 1985 - 1999 .............................................................................................. 5
Recent Development Trends................................................................................................... 8
Zoning Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 14
Auburn’s Zoning Scheme ..................................................................................................... 14
Residential Districts.............................................................................................................. 14
Non-Residential Districts...................................................................................................... 18
Overlay Districts................................................................................................................... 20
Land Use Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................ 23
Land Use and Zoning Recommendations ................................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES...............................................................28
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 28
Needs of Municipal Departments.............................................................................................. 30
Auburn Public Library.......................................................................................................... 30
School Department ............................................................................................................... 31
Auburn Fire Department....................................................................................................... 35
Management Information Systems ....................................................................................... 36
Engineering Department....................................................................................................... 38
Parks Department.................................................................................................................. 39
Auburn Highway Department............................................................................................... 39
Water System........................................................................................................................ 41
Sewer Department ................................................................................................................ 44
Auburn Senior Center ........................................................................................................... 48
Auburn Police Department ................................................................................................... 49
Summary of Principal Findings ................................................................................................ 51
Public Facilities and Services Goals ......................................................................................... 53
Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING...............................................................................................................56
Housing Assessment and Analysis............................................................................................ 56
Population Trends................................................................................................................. 56
Housing Unit Growth ........................................................................................................... 57
Average Household Size: ..................................................................................................... 59
Table of Contents
i
Auburn Master Plan, 2006
Housing Unit Inventory ........................................................................................................ 60
Age of Housing Stock........................................................................................................... 61
Housing Occupancy.............................................................................................................. 62
Types of Households ............................................................................................................ 63
Housing Demand Assessment & Needs Analysis ................................................................ 64
Units Eligible for Inclusion in the Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory.................. 66
Housing Goal and Objectives.................................................................................................... 67
Housing Unit Production and Land Use Suitability.................................................................. 75
Housing Unit Production ...................................................................................................... 75
Land Use Suitability ............................................................................................................. 75
Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................81
Assessment of Auburn’s Current Economic Base .................................................................... 81
Auburn’s Labor Force........................................................................................................... 81
Number and Types of Jobs in Auburn .................................................................................. 82
Where Residents of Auburn and Neighboring Towns Work................................................ 84
Measures of Wealth .............................................................................................................. 85
Education .............................................................................................................................. 86
Contribution to the Local Tax Base...................................................................................... 87
Vacant, Developable Industrially Zoned Land ..................................................................... 88
Home Occupations................................................................................................................ 89
Economic Development Goal and Objectives .......................................................................... 90
CHAPTER 6: OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION .....................................................................97
Evironmental Inventory and Analysis....................................................................................... 97
Geology, Soils and Topography ........................................................................................... 97
Landscape Character............................................................................................................. 99
Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 100
Vegetation........................................................................................................................... 102
Fisheries and Wildlife......................................................................................................... 102
Scenic Resources and Unique Environments ..................................................................... 103
Environmental Problems .................................................................................................... 104
Inventory of Conservation and Recreation Lands................................................................... 106
Analysis of Need ..................................................................................................................... 122
Summary of Resource Protection Needs ............................................................................ 122
Summary of Community Needs ......................................................................................... 123
Management Needs, Potential Change of Use.................................................................... 124
Open Space Goals & Objectives ............................................................................................. 124
Five-Year Action Plan ............................................................................................................ 126
CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION ...........................................................................................130
Introduction............................................................................................................................. 130
Inventory of Transportation Conditions.................................................................................. 132
Evolving Travel Patterns .................................................................................................... 132
Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................................. 135
Functional Classification .................................................................................................... 135
Traffic Congestion .............................................................................................................. 139
Congestion Management System............................................................................................ 139
Route 20.............................................................................................................................. 139
Table of Contents
ii
Commercial Areas & Major Roads .................................................................................... 141
Collector Roads .................................................................................................................. 142
Maintaining the Transportation Infrastructure.................................................................... 143
Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 144
Vehicle Crash Information ................................................................................................. 144
At-Grade Highway/Rail Crossings ..................................................................................... 148
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety ............................................................................................ 149
Transit ..................................................................................................................................... 149
WRTA Fixed-Route Bus Service ....................................................................................... 149
Paratransit Service .............................................................................................................. 152
Town’s Share of Transit Costs............................................................................................ 153
Recommendations................................................................................................................... 154
Transportation Goal ............................................................................................................ 154
Objectives & Recommended Actions................................................................................. 154
APPENDIX A: Findings from the Community Vision Forums...................................................158
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Auburn Land Use, 1999 ......................................................................................................6
Table 2 Land Use Change: 1985 - 1999...........................................................................................8
Table 3 Building Permits Issued for New Dwelling Units...............................................................9
Table 4 Recent Subdivision Approvals, 2000 - 2005.......................................................................9
Table 5 Recent Non-Residential Developments in Auburn ...........................................................12
Table 6 Zoning District of Auburn.................................................................................................15
Table 7 Zoning District Summary..................................................................................................15
Table 8 Build-Out Results ..............................................................................................................17
Table 9 Zoning Overlay Districts ...................................................................................................20
Table 10 School Facilities ..............................................................................................................31
Table 11 Selected School Performance Indicators .........................................................................32
Table 12 2003 Fire Experience.......................................................................................................36
Table 13 Sewer Connections, 2004 ................................................................................................45
Table 14 Sewer Department Budget...............................................................................................46
Table 15 WRTA Funded Para-Transit Services .............................................................................49
Table 16 Auburn Population Growth .............................................................................................56
Table 17 Population Growth and Percent Change in Neighboring Communities..........................57
Table 18 Housing Unit Growth in Auburn.....................................................................................57
Table 19 Housing Unit Growth – Neighboring Communities .......................................................57
Table 20 Annual Number of Units Authorized by Building Permits: 1998-2004..........................58
Table 21 Auburn Residential Build-Out Statistics .........................................................................59
Table 22 Population by Age Group................................................................................................60
Table 23 Units in Structure - Year 2000 ........................................................................................60
Table 24 Type of Housing Units in Neighboring Communities: 2000 ..........................................61
Table 25 Age of Auburn Housing Stock ........................................................................................61
Table 26 Age of Housing Stock (Pre 1940) in Neighboring Communities: 2000.........................62
Table 27 Type of Occupancy (Owner/Renter - 2000)....................................................................62
Table 28 Type of Occupancy in Neighboring Communities (Owner/Renter - 2000) ....................63
Table 29 Auburn Households by Type, 2000.................................................................................63
Table 30 Households by Type – Neighboring Communities (2000)..............................................63
Table 31 Rental Unit Need/Demand Analysis ...............................................................................65
Table 32 Homeownership Need/Demand Analysis........................................................................66
Table of Contents
iii
Table 33 Units Contributing to the Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory ..........................67
Table 34 Chapter 40B Developments.............................................................................................67
Table 35 Residential Uses Permitted by Zoning District ...............................................................76
Table 36 Employment Status of Auburn Residents........................................................................81
Table 37 Employment and Wages in Auburn ................................................................................82
Table 38 Workforce Employment by Sector..................................................................................83
Table 39 Employment and Wages – Year 2004 Comparison ........................................................84
Table 40 Location of Work (In-Town, Out-of-Town) ...................................................................85
Table 41 Measures of Wealth for Auburn and Comparable Communities, 2000 ..........................85
Table 42 Educational Attainment Population 25 Years and Over..................................................87
Table 43 Commercial Tax Base Comparison.................................................................................87
Table 44 Industrial Tax Base Comparison .....................................................................................88
Table 45 Non-Residential Build-Out Analysis...............................................................................89
Table 46 Endangered Plant Species in Auburn ............................................................................102
Table 47 Endangered Animal Species in Auburn ........................................................................103
Table 48 Inventory of Conservation and Recreation Lands .........................................................109
Table 49 Major Work Destinations for Auburn Residents...........................................................133
Table 50 Major Places of Residence for Employees at Auburn Businesses ................................134
Table 51 Registered Motor Vehicles in Auburn...........................................................................135
Table 52 Auburn Traffic Volumes ...............................................................................................136
Table 53 Vehicle Crashes in Auburn............................................................................................146
Table 54 Top Crash Locations in Auburn ....................................................................................146
Table 55 Occurrences at Different Crash Location Types ...........................................................146
Table 56 Personal Injuries (2001-2004) .......................................................................................148
Table 57 Auburn Average Weekday Bus Ridership ....................................................................150
Table 58 Auburn Council on Aging Transportation Services ......................................................152
Table 59 Brokered Paratransit Trips in Auburn ...........................................................................153
Table 60 Town of Auburn Assessments Paid to WRTA..............................................................153
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1 Land Use Map .......................................................................................................................7
Map 2 Zoning Map.........................................................................................................................16
Map 3 Zoning Overlay Map ...........................................................................................................22
Map 4 Municipal Facilities Map ....................................................................................................29
Map 5 Water System Map..............................................................................................................43
Map 6 Sewer System Map..............................................................................................................47
Map 7 Housing Suitability Map .....................................................................................................77
Map 8 Economic Development Suitability Map ............................................................................96
Map 9 General Soils Map...............................................................................................................98
Map 10 Water Resource Map.......................................................................................................101
Map 11 Scenic Resources and Unique Environments Map .........................................................105
Map 12 Open Space Inventory Map.............................................................................................121
Map 13 Open Space Action Plan Map .........................................................................................129
Map 14 Roadway Function Map ..................................................................................................138
Map 15 Transportation Infrastructure Map ..................................................................................145
Map 16 Public Safety Map ...........................................................................................................147
Map 17 Transit Service Map ........................................................................................................151
Table of Contents
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Auburn Planning Board gratefully acknowledges the dedication and hard work of the Master
Plan Committee in the preparation of this Plan. The Committee has met innumerable times over
the course of a four-year period to produce a fine document that will help guide the community
for many years to come. The recommendations contained in the Plan represent a comprehensive
treatment of the many forces affecting the growth and development of our community. We are
confident that this well conceived Plan will prove invaluable to our local officials, Town Meeting
members, professional public servants, and dedicated volunteers in making Auburn a better place
to live and work. This would not have been possible without the vision and persistence of the
Master Plan Committee and their unselfish devotion to the task.
In addition, we would like to acknowledge the providers of financial assistance without whom
this Plan would not have been possible. We would like to thank Auburn Town Meeting members
for their support in providing the necessary gap financing to complete the Plan. The Auburn
Chamber of Commerce also recognized the value of having a Master Plan, not only to promote
economic development, but also to insure that Auburn remains a vital and active community that
provides for its citizens and respects its heritage. We thank the Chamber and its leadership for its
generous contribution of $5,000. Finally, Auburn was fortunate to receive a $30,000 grant from
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Executive Order 418 to undertake the first phase of
this effort, which resulted in the “Auburn Vision 2020” report (2002) and the “Auburn
Community Development Plan” (2004).
Auburn Planning Board
Master Plan Committee
David DeLollis, Chairman
Phillip Tully, Vice-Chairman
Daniel Carpenter
Ronald Brooks
David Doherty
Daniel Carpenter, Chairman
Ann Weston
Ronald Brooks
Lawrence Brodeur
Joan Calverley
Richard LaPrade
Joseph Shannon
Marcia Ofcarcik
George Jewell
Stephen Antinelli, Town Planner
Susan Medbery
Sharon Anderson
Wayne Nicholas, former Town Planner
Board of Selectmen, 2006
Local Officials
Elizabeth Prouty, Chairman
William Gribbons, Vice-Chairman
Robert Grossman
Carl Westerman
Robert Valentine
Charles O’Connor, Town Administrator
Edward Kazanovicz, Town Accountant
James Zingarelli, Town Engineer
William Whynot, Fire Chief
Darleen Wood-Belsito, Highway Surveyor
William Stone, Police Chief, Retired
Jeffrey Mitchell, Sewer Superintendent
Table of Contents
v
Central Mass. Regional Planning Commission
William Scanlan, Planner-in-Charge
Suzanne LePage, Transportation Planner
Michael T. Morin, GIS Analyst
Table of Contents
Stephen Wallace, Principal Planner
Paul J. Samara, GIS Coordinator
vi
CHAPTER 1:
AUBURN 2020 VISION STATEMENT 1
The Vision for Auburn in 2020 is one where:
Quality of Life
•
Residents view their town with pride and are dedicated to making Auburn a great place in
which to live and work.
•
Auburn provides a safe, healthy, diverse, and livable environment for its citizens.
•
Citizens participate in Town affairs in large numbers. Boards and Commissions have
qualified candidates who work for the betterment of the Town.
•
Town Meeting members consult with their constituents to represent their interests at
Town Meeting.
•
Service organizations take on numerous civic improvement projects to enhance the
quality of life in Auburn.
•
Auburn schools continue to provide a high quality education for children. The schools are
a focal point of community life and offer lifelong learning opportunities to residents.
•
A community center provides wholesome activities for Auburn youth. Cultural enrichment programs in music, dance, art, and theatre add to the fabric of community life.
Tax Rates and Municipal Services
•
A balance is struck between keeping a reasonable residential tax rate and assuring
sufficient funding that maintains high quality municipal services.
•
A long-range Capital Improvement Plan is thoughtfully developed and consistently
implemented and insures that building and equipment needs are funded in a timely
manner.
•
The Town maintains a substantial non-residential tax base. New growth helps to fund
needed community services and minimizes the tax burden on residents.
•
Despite state cuts in local highway funds, a road maintenance program is developed and
implemented to insure well-used secondary roads are improved on a regular basis.
Environment, Recreation, and Open Space
•
1
An expanded park system contains adequate recreational fields and play equipment to
meet Auburn’s outdoor recreational needs.
From “Auburn Vision 2020”, 2002 by the Auburn Master Plan Committee
Vision Statement
1
•
Lakes and ponds that have suffered from noxious weeds have been cleaned up and
restored to high quality waters.
•
Large contiguous tracts of open space are permanently protected from development. This
helps Auburn maintain the feel of a small town and preserves important natural resources
for future generations. Historic resources are preserved to exemplify the Town’s heritage.
•
A series of greenways and hiking trails offer residents outdoor amenities. The Webster
branch of the old Boston and Albany Railroad is converted into a multiple use rail trail.
•
Demonstrating community pride, citizens regularly participate in Town “clean-up days”
and remain vigilant about keeping Auburn looking attractive and pollution-free.
•
To maintain the Town’s environmental quality and public health, sanitary sewers are
extended to residential neighborhoods with high rates of septic system failures.
•
Local officials engage the public in discussions about the benefits of open space
preservation and work to implement tools to preserve land for future generations.
Economic Development
•
Auburn thrives as a regional center for retail and consumer services. The Town has
contained expansion of commercial and industrial land uses to areas most suitable for
such activity.
•
The Town actively works to promote economic development that is supported by
residents. Infrastructure improvements are made with state assistance to promote new
growth without affecting residential neighborhoods.
•
New commercial development respects the Town’s desire for a more traditional
appearance based upon its colonial roots. Commercial areas are more pedestrian in scale,
are nicely landscaped, have attractive parking areas, and create pleasant shopping
environments.
•
Auburn is home to a diverse number of industries, offering good wages and job
opportunities for workers of all skill levels.
Town Character and Form
•
Drury Square has been revitalized to become Auburn’s “downtown”. With extensive
community input, a design consultant prepared a plan to make the area a community
asset. The Town made strategic infrastructure investments, obtained grants, improved
parking and circulation, and worked closely with landowners to achieve the vision for the
area. Drury Square has become a quality “Village style” shopping area with small-scale
retail and service uses and a pedestrian oriented building and parking layout.
•
Highway Business districts have been re-configured to minimize the “strip commercial”
character that previously defined the roadways. Redevelopment of older commercial sites
and clear design standards provide opportunities to remedy mistakes of the past.
Vision Statement
2
•
Residential streets are quiet and safe, and cut-through traffic is minimized. Road
improvements on commercial thoroughfares allow traffic to flow efficiently, and business
prospers as motorists are able to safely enter and exit commercial driveways.
•
Well-defined neighborhoods provide safe environments for children and give Auburn an
identity as a caring, residential community. Residents have ready access to parks, open
space, and community facilities.
Housing
•
Elderly homeowners who wish to leave their single family home have a variety of
housing choices, including assisted living facilities, retirement communities, and in-law
apartments.
•
Despite the increasing cost of housing in Auburn, private, state and federal programs help
moderate-income first time homebuyers afford mortgage payments.
•
The Auburn Housing Authority maintains its existing units in excellent condition, and is
able to add to its inventory of subsidized housing by accessing state and federal funds for
small-scale projects.
•
Cluster developments become the preferred housing choice for single family homes due
to the benefits of preserving open space, reducing road and infrastructure costs, and
providing an alternative to homebuyers who do not wish to maintain a large lot.
Developers provide small playgrounds to meet neighborhood needs.
Vision Statement
3
CHAPTER 2:
LAND USE AND ZONING
LAND USE
Overview of Land Use Pattern
In the early part of the 20th century, Auburn was a rural and agrarian community that contained
little industrial activity unlike many of its counterparts in Central Massachusetts. Older singlefamily neighborhoods concentrated in a north-south manner near the center of town within easy
travel of Worcester, which at that time was the principal location of large-scale industries and
commercial services. Rail service provided convenient access into the City and helped spur the
first single-family neighborhoods. These contain modest single-family homes on lots small by
modern standards, typically ¼ acre or less. Today, these are pleasant neighborhoods with treelined streets, and pedestrian scale that encourage residents to walk and raise families. Auburn
contained a few industries that employed residents and only modest commercial services that met
the needs of local residents. The Town retained its agricultural nature well into the middle of the
last century. Changes slowly began to occur as the automobile became affordable for a growing
middle-class.
Auburn’s primary era of development occurred in the post-World War II years, spurred by the
opening of the Massachusetts Turnpike in 1957. Worcester, as the central city of the Region,
began to decline in this period. Spurred by the GI Bill and generous subsidies for home
ownership, veterans left the dense, triple-decker and multi-family neighborhoods of Worcester to
become homeowners and pursue the American dream in surrounding communities. Auburn, as a
first ring suburb of Worcester, was the beneficiary of this phenomenon. With its good schools and
plentiful available land, Auburn began a period of rapid during the 1950s’ and 1960’s.
Residential development has occurred in a logical fashion. Lots of 10,000 square feet are
permitted in the Residential A district, which comprises much of the older pre-war and early postwar development. Adjacent to these neighborhoods, the Residential B district permits lots of
20,000 sq. ft. or approximately ½ acre in size. Developments here were largely built in the babyboom era where families sought large yards to provide back-yard play space for young children.
Auburn quickly developed with new subdivisions as developers responded to the increasing
demand for safe neighborhoods to raise children, away from the perceived crime of central cities.
With its ready access to Worcester and opening of interchange 10 on the Turnpike, it became
readily apparent that Auburn was a pleasant suburban community that offered easy commuting
access to good-paying jobs in near-by and distant communities. These neighborhoods offer the
same amenities today and attract the same family-oriented residents who prefer a suburban lifestyle. As these neighborhoods have aged, homes have generally been well-maintained. Many of
the original residents stayed in these homes for decades, and turnover of one and two-person units
is occurring with homes being occupied once again by couples with children.
Today, Auburn is a regional commercial center that contains a high concentration of commercial
services. With a 2004 population of 16,381 (U.S. Census Bureau estimate) Auburn contains
significantly more retail and service businesses than would be expected for a community of its
size. Due to its prominence as a crossroads of three interstates, I-90, I-290 and I-395, the growth
of Auburn has been heavily influenced by its excellent highway access. These routes afford
Auburn the advantage of ease of access into the community from the surrounding region, and
merchants and developers have responded by offering a wide variety of commercial activities.
Land Use and Zoning
4
State Route 12 and U.S. Route 20 are the principal highways where the majority of Auburn’s
mercantile activities occur. Both corridors are largely developed with commercial services and
have little vacant land available for new development. As a result, it is likely that most new
growth in Auburn will come as a result of redevelopment of existing parcels.
Development in outlying areas of Auburn is constrained by topography. West Auburn contains
hilly terrain that precludes widespread subdivision style development. Frontage development and
scattered subdivision of single-family homes intermix with a predominant forest use. With less
severe environmental constraints, east and south Auburn may eventually fully develop,
particularly if water and sewer systems are extended to these areas. A few agricultural operations
remain as remnants from Auburn’s past.
Auburn lacks a classic New England Town Center, i.e. an institutional and civic core, multi-story
buildings, ground level retail with upper floor residential and office use, surrounded by high
density single and multi-family residential development. Drury Square at the intersection of
Auburn and Southbridge Streets is perceived by most residents as the focal point of the Town.
Located here are the High School, Fire Station, and Library. It contains a memorial to Robert
Goddard, and the presence of Auburn Pond and Dunn’s Brook provide pleasant open space.
However, it is dominated by strip commercial style development and its auto dominated character
detracts from its function as a pedestrian-scale village. Nevertheless, it has the potential over time
to be reorganized through a combination of public and private sector investment to transform into
a vibrant community center.
Land Use Change: 1985 - 1999
Aerial photography for the entire state of Massachusetts was completed (at 1:25,000) in 1971,
1985, and 1999. The UMass-Amherst Department of Forestry Resource Mapping Project (RMP)
interpreted land cover patterns shown on these photos and digitized the results to create a land use
coverage with 21 categories. The digital data allows planners to identify not only where change in
the land use has occurred but also to quantify the amount of this change over time. It should be
noted that this process produces a different picture of how land is used than the land use
classification system employed by Assessors for taxation purposes. Chapter _ contains a
recommendation that Auburn develop a geographic information system (GIS) to provide local
officials with Assessors data and maps in digital form.
Map 1 displays the 1999 land use coverage based upon the RMP data. Table 1 summarizes the
actual land use distribution in acres for 1999, the most recent data available, and the percentage of
the Town occupied. Table 2 quantifies the changes in land use that occurred from 1985 to 1999.
In 1999, forests remain the principal use of land in Auburn, with over 4,200 acres or 40% of the
community. Much of this use occurs in rural parts of west, east, and south Auburn. Much of
Auburn’s agricultural land has disappeared, with only about 539 acres or 5% of the Town
remaining in agricultural use. As late as 1971 there were over 900 acres of agricultural land, but
much of this has been converted to developed uses. Wetlands and water bodies comprised the
other major undeveloped land categories in 1999, which together account for over 700 acres, or
about 7% of the Town.
The largest category of developed land in Auburn is for single-family homes, which cover 3,075
acres or 29% of the Town. This reinforces the characterization of Auburn as a largely suburban
community. As noted above and as can be seen on Map 1, most of this development has occurred
Land Use and Zoning
5
in a wide north-south swath through the center of the town. In contrast, the 1999 data reveals little
multi-family development, amounting to only 62 acres, or less than 1% of the Town. One of the
larger developments is the independent and assisted living residences at Eddy Pond, which
contains 190 units. Other multi-family developments include those under the jurisdiction of the
Auburn Housing Authority: Pheasant Court, Pakachoag Village, and Stoneville Heights.
Included within the single family land use category are mobile home parks located on the easterly
end of Route 20 at the Worcester city line. These include Windbrook Acres and Whispering
Pines. According to the 2000 Census, Auburn contains 361 mobile homes, which is about 5.5%
of the total housing stock in Auburn. These are located in a Highway Business district, but mobile
home parks are no longer an allowed use in Auburn.
Table 1
Auburn Land Use, 1999
Land Use Category
Acres
Percent
Agriculture
538.6
5.1%
Forestry
4,207.2
40.0%
Wetland
127.4
1.2%
Recreation and Public Land
346.0
3.3%
Multi-Family
62.0
0.6%
Single Family
3,075.0
29.2%
Commercial
405.5
3.9%
Industrial
298.3
2.8%
Transportation
473.1
4.5%
Waste Disposal, Mining and Open Land
413.9
3.9%
Water
581.2
5.5%
Total
10,528.1
Auburn contains a great deal of land devoted to commercial activity, with over 400 acres (4% of
the town, classified as commercial land. Auburn Mall is the largest and most recognizable of
these developments. Auburn also has many smaller retail plazas along Routes 12 and 20 that help
to define Auburn as a retail center for the surrounding communities. Many of these developments
pre-date modern zoning controls and do not present an attractive appearance that reflects a
positive community image. In numerous community forums, Auburn residents have spoken of the
need to incorporate modern design standards to insure new growth incorporates principles of
aesthetics, traffic and parking management, minimizes the prominence of the automobile, has
greater pedestrian connectivity, and contains a mix of land uses. These concepts are discussed in
further detail below. Local land use boards have already begun to make these changes during site
plan and special permit reviews, and modern projects are far superior to the post war editions.
Fortunately, market forces will likely bring about redevelopment of many of the older
commercial developments in Auburn in the coming years. Commercial land in Auburn is quite
valuable and can support rents that will encourage landowners to replace low income producing
properties with more attractive and functional designs.
Land Use and Zoning
6
Map 1
Land Use Map
Land Use and Zoning
7
Table 2
Land Use Change: 1985 - 1999
Land Use Category
Acres
Agriculture
-285.7
Forestry
-205.4
Wetland
-2.7
Recreation and Public Land
16.1
Multi-Family
10.1
Single Family
377.4
Commercial
64.0
Industrial
25.4
Transportation
5.3
Waste Disposal, Mining and Open Land
Water
45.1
0.0
Industrial development accounts for about 300 acres of land in Auburn, or about 3 % of the total.
The largest industrial areas include the Auburn Industrial Park in north Auburn near the
Worcester line; the Millbury Street/Technology Drive area in central Auburn; the newly
developed Westec Industrial Park on Route 20 in east Auburn; and the transfer station and
associated industrial uses in west Auburn off Hardscrabble Road. These uses are significant
contributors to the local tax base and provide a source of good-paying jobs for local residents.
Finally, due to the presence of major highways, a significant portion of Auburn is devoted to
transportation use. Table 1 indicates that 473 acres are devoted to transportation purposes. These
include the travel lanes and interchanges of the Mass. Turnpike, I-290, and I-395. Not included in
the category are the rail lines, state-numbered routs, and local roads.
Recent Development Trends
The residential boom of the 1950’s and 1960’s has slowed considerably. From 1950 to 1970,
Auburn gained over 7,700 in population, more than double its size in 1940. From 1980 to 2000,
however, Auburn gained just a little over 1,000 in population. The pace of recent residential
development is shown in Table 3 below. For the 15 year period of 1990 to 2004, a total of 904
building permits for new dwelling units were issued, for an average of 60 new units per year. The
numbers peaked in 1996 and 1997 with the development of the Woods and the Lodge at Eddy
Pond. Removing those 2 years from the mix, the average number of units built during the period
falls to 40 per year. The pace of new housing growth in recent years has increased considerably
from that of the economic downturn of the early 1990’s, with an average of 59 permits issued
from 2000 to 2004.
Land Use and Zoning
8
Table 3
Building Permits Issued for New Dwelling Units
Year
Permits
Year
Permits
1990
35
1998
55
1991
33
1999
65
1992
30
2000
49
1993
32
2001
52
1994
35
2002
62
1995
27
2003
58
1996
126
2004
74
1997
171
Total
904
Average
60
It is somewhat surprising, given the rapid pace of subdivision development in Auburn’s past, that
there has been only modest a modest number of subdivision approvals in recent years. Table 4
shows that between 2000 and 2005, the Planning Board approved 7 subdivisions containing a
total of 90 lots, in which 52 permits had been issued by August 2005. The largest of these, Bryn
Mawr estates, was actually a re-approval of an old plan originally approved in 1965 but never
completed.
Table 4
Recent Subdivision Approvals, 2000 - 2005
Name
Number
of Lots
Westlund Ave. Extension
Permits
Issued
Year
Approved
2
2
2004
Bryn Mawr Estates*
44
7
1965/2004
Prospect Hills
11
7
2004
Rydberg Terrace
6
0
2003
Crowl Hill
4
3
2001
21
17
2000
2
16
2000
90
52
Curtis Meadows
Dale Woods Condominiums
Total
Source: Town Planner
* Bryn Mawr Estates was approved in 1965 and revised in 2004.
Land Use and Zoning
9
The principal conclusion to be drawn from this data is that most of the new housing being built in
Auburn is not in subdivisions or in multi-family developments, but rather in isolated lots. These
include vacant lots in older neighborhoods (known as infill development) or as ANR lots along
existing roads. ANR stands for “Approval Not Required” plans, a form of subdivision that creates
new lots without oversight by the Planning Board. Proposed lots that have frontage required by
the zoning district on an existing public road, or on a way approved by the Planning Board
pursuant to a definitive subdivision plan, are entitled to be endorsed without any approval or
conditions from the Board.
This trend is likely to continue for some time as most of the land that was easily developable for
new subdivisions has already been developed. In viewing the 1999 Land Use Map, one can see
that ANR-type development is far along in rural parts of Auburn, but as the remaining frontage
on existing ways is claimed for new homes over the coming years, this option will no longer be
available. As a consequence, the marginal land that remains will be the only option for traditional
single family housing growth, the form most preferred by Auburn developers and homebuyers.
New subdivisions will occur on the “back land” behind existing roads, on land that has
environmental constraints for building due to steep slopes, shallow depth to bedrock,
impermeable soils, etc. Overcoming such constraints is possible, but at a greater cost and with
negative environmental consequences such as increased erosion and sedimentation, extensive cuts
and fills, removal of stabilizing vegetation, and loss of habitat for native wildlife.
Sewage treatment may well dictate the form of housing development that occurs in the remaining
rural parts of Town. The existing Town sewerage system is well developed in the core of Auburn,
and can be extended to more remote areas to provide for sewage disposal on land that otherwise
may not be able to accommodate on-site septic systems. The sewage capacity of the Upper
Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District plant can easily accept more flow from Auburn.
(See Chapter 3.) But overcoming steep topography will be costly for laying new sewer lines and
force mains and constructing (and maintaining) new pump stations. This Plan does not
recommend public subsidies to extend the sewer system to outlying areas due to the excessive
cost the Town would bear. However, a policy the Town does support is to allow private
developers to extend the sewer system at their own expense in order to overcome areas where
septic system failures are common, or where soils do not have the required permeability to
accommodate new on-site systems. Furthermore, as a condition of approval for extending the
sewer system, new subdivisions will only be permitted as an Open Space Residential
Developments (OSRD) as permitted by the provisions of the Zoning Bylaw.
In contrast to the modest pace of residential growth, Auburn continues to experience rapid
commercial and industrial development. Table 7 contains a list of projects greater than 10,000
square feet that have taken place in Auburn over the past 15 years. The table is divided into
several categories of use in order to analyze the amount and type of such growth that has
occurred. Several important points can be made.
Overall, Auburn continues to thrive with a significant amount of commercial development.
This can be attributed to its position at the crossroads of three interstate highways. The Town
acts as a regional retail center for surrounding communities.
Retail development continues to lead the way. Several large developments have occurred
during this period, including a major expansion of the Auburn Mall. “Big box” retail has a
strong foothold in Auburn, with national retailers finding the Town to be a desirable location
for their businesses. These include BJ’s, Home Depot, and the proposed Lowe’s Home
Improvement Store.
Land Use and Zoning
10
Several retail plazas have taken advantage of smaller parcels with good highway access on
Routes 12 and 20. The small number of vacancies of existing storefronts attests to the strong
retail market in Auburn.
Auburn has become well-know throughout the Region for its numerous auto dealerships.
Several new car dealers have entered the Auburn market in recent years, giving the Town the
reputation of having its own “Auto-Mile”. These dealers have concentrated along Route 20.
Four new hotels opened in Auburn in 2004 and 2005, bringing in over 300 new hotel rooms.
This will be somewhat offset by the closing of the Yankee Drummer Inn if the Lowe’s Home
Improvement Store is built on that site. Other hotels in Auburn have helped to make the
hospitality sector one of the strengths of the Auburn economy.
In contrast, industrial development has been much less active, perhaps attesting to the lack of
good developable industrially-zoned parcels. The opening of the Westec Industrial Park on
Route 20 has provided pad-ready industrial sites, and several industrial and distribution
projects in recent years occurred there.
The office market has not been particularly strong in Auburn. With the heavy reliance on the
retail and hospitality sectors, wages in Auburn are generally lower than wages provided by
office and industrial jobs. One reason for the lack of office development in Auburn is that
office buildings are prohibited in General Industrial and Industrial A districts. This use should
be allowed in all industrial districts by right with site plan approval.
Land Use and Zoning
11
Table 5
Recent Non-Residential Developments in Auburn
Location
Square
Feet
Lundgren Collision
Route 20
15,000
Patrick Motors
Route 20
27,600
4.7
1995
Former Kia Dealership
Washington St./South St.
8,750
1.6
2004
Bancroft Motors-Nissan
Rt. 20/569 Oxford St. S
30,277
6.0
2005
Diamond Pontiac (former
Riverside Mitsubishi)
768 Washington St.
2.0
2006
Type and Use
Acres
Year
Auto Dealers
2004
Distribution
Filene's Basement
276 Millbury St.
FedEx Ground
Westec Drive
Phellco
199 Washington St.
270,000
1999
49,000
2000
2005
Hotels
Classic Suites and Inns
Rt. 12/20/3A Hill St.
36,000
1.4
2005
Holiday Inn Express Hotel
773 Washington St.
35,000
3.0
2004
Fairfield Inn & Suites
718A Southbridge St.
12,626
2.0
2005
Hampton Inn & Restaurant
736 Southbridge St.
19,300
11.0
2004
Enviroplastics Corp.
15 St. Mark St.
33,494
Allied Machine Products
4 Westec Drive
34,000
Montrose CDT
28 Sword St.
57,000
2000
Brady-Built of New England
160 Southbridge St.
31,000
2003
Recycling Center
West St.
65,000
1996
Industrial
1990
5.5
2000
Office
PC Plus
1 Westec Dr./Rt. 20
Western Carriers Inc.
Westec Dr.
12,000
Polytec PI Inc.
16 Albert St.
18,000
Webster First Fed. Credit Union
547 Southbridge St.
Land Use and Zoning
12
c. 2000
2000
3.5
2001
2002
Location
Square
Feet
Acres
Year
Former Barnes & Noble
(Bernie’s Appliance)
472 Southbridge St.
14,300
1.0
1992
BJ's
177 Washington St.
106,000
12.0
1992
Auburn Mall
Route 12
175,000
40.0
1997
Route 12
48,000
Auburn Village
458 Southbridge St.
25,000
2.1
1994
CVS/Applebees
Southbridge/Goulding
30,125
3.2
1997
Staples/Petco
Southbridge St.
39,000
5.3
1999
Home Depot
779 Washington St.
Tweeter
Type and Use
Retail/Commercial
Auburn Mall-Filene's
Store (Former Caldor's)
Home
2002
114,400
1999
Rt. 12
12,000
1999
New Southbridge Center
434 Southbridge St.
10,800
Filene's
Auburn Mall
87,500
Shaw's Supermarket
Swanson Rd.
44,000
Royal Plaza
883 Southbridge St.
Outback Steak House
771 Southbridge St.
Lowe's Home Center
624 Southbridge St.
165,382
17.1
Proposed
Sportsplex
Rt. 20/St. Mark's St.
50,000
3.0
2003
Chili’s
820 Southbridge St.
Land Use and Zoning
13
1.2
2003
2002
6.0
2002
2003
2005
ZONING ANALYSIS
Auburn’s Zoning Scheme
Auburn’s Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map regulate the manner in which land owners may develop
their property. Other factors also influence how land may be developed, such as roadway access,
availability of water and sewer services, topography, soil conditions, and market forces to name a
few. A community’s zoning scheme, however, establishes the manner in which the various land
uses are permitted to occur. Map 2 displays the zoning district configuration for Auburn. The
Town is divided into ten conventional districts and four overlay districts.
Table 6 displays the minimum lot size and frontage requirements as well as the percentage of land
area devoted to each zoning category. Table 7 summaries the districts to provide a simple
overview of Auburn’s zoning scheme. Table 8 contains the results of a “Build-Out Analysis” and
displays the undeveloped acreage present in each district and the amount of future development
that could occur. The build-out analysis is based upon the zoning regulations in effect, and is
designed to take into account environmental factors that limit the development potential of a site.
The results do not provide a timeframe for projecting growth but provide a glimpse into the future
by quantifying the maximum amount of development that can occur if no changes are made to
alter the outcomes.
Residential Districts
There are five residential zoning districts that occupy 83% of Auburn. Table 6 indicates that all
districts permit single and two family dwellings. Two family homes are permitted by special
permit in RA, RB, RC, and RR, and by site plan approval in RO. Auburn has a well-conceived
delineation of districts, ranging from minimum lot sizes of 10,000 to 60,000 square feet. With the
exception of the RO district, these areas are intended primarily to provide land for housing
development without interference from potentially adverse activities. Agricultural and
institutional uses are permitted, but commercial and industrial activities are prohibited. Most of
the developed land in these districts is devoted to single family homes. Given the small amount of
multi-family development in Auburn, it is somewhat surprising that townhouses and apartments
are permitted by special permit in RA and RB, and by-right with site plan approval in RO. It is
unclear why so few multi-family projects have been developed in Auburn given the fact that they
are a permitted use and there are well developed public water and sewer systems in these districts.
The smallest lots occur in RA, the sections of Town that were generally developed before the
adoption of zoning. The Town has provided water and sewer services to this district to
accommodate the small lot sizes. Adjacent to RA districts and extending generally to the east and
west from the center are RB districts with a minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet.
Subdivisions in RB districts generally developed later than the RA districts. These areas are also
served by public water and sewer systems. Table 8 indicates that there are nearly 600 acres of
land still undeveloped in RB zones. If all remaining land was developed for single family homes,
approximately 500 new lots could be created. Because water and sewer lines are already adjacent
to undeveloped property, there should be little concern over possible environmental impacts
provided proper safeguards are taken.
Land Use and Zoning
14
Table 6
Zoning District of Auburn
Code
Min. Lot Size
(Square Feet)
District
LB
Local Business
HB
Min. Frontage
(Feet)
% of
Town
5,000
50
2%
Highway Business
10,000
120
7%
GI
General Industry
10,000
100
4%
IA
Industrial A
10,000
100
2%
IP
Industrial Park
30,000
100
2%
RA
Residence-A
One-Family
Two Family
10,000
29,000
100
23%
RB
Residence-B
One-Family
Two Family
20,000
29,000
100
16%
RC
Residence-C
One-Family
Two Family
40,000
49,000
160
9%
RR
Residence-R
One-Family
Two Family
60,000
69,000
180
34%
RO
Residence-Office
One-Family
Two Family
10,000
19,000
100
1%
Table 7
Zoning District Summary
Summary
Land Use
Percentage
LB, HB
Business
9%
GI, IA, IP
Industry
8%
RA, RB,
RR, RO
Land Use and Zoning
RC, Residential
15
83%
Map 2
Zoning Map
Land Use and Zoning
16
Table 8
Build-Out Results
Residential Districts
Available
Land (Acres)
Buildable
Lots
New
Students
New
Population
Residence-A (RA)
287
446
198
1,242
Residence-B (RB)
593
513
232
1,453
Residence-C District (RC)
447
270
120
754
Residence-R District (RR)
2,084
824
367
2,296
Total
3,411
2,053
917
5,745
Assumptions:
Average Household Size: 2.48
Gallons of Water per Capita: 75
Public School Students per Household Calculations: 0.396
Non-Residential Districts
Available Land
(Acres)
Local Business (LB)
Floor Area
(Sq. Ft).
6
34,435
136
293,478
General Industry (GI)
67
303,897
Industrial District A (IA)
69
511,973
Industrial Park (IP)
126
1,305,000
Total
404
2,448,783
Highway Business (HB)
One Residential Office (RO) district exists. It follows Auburn Street between I-290 and Oxford
Street North, with a setback of 200’ on either side of the street. Dimensional requirements are
similar to RA districts. However, unlike other residential districts, and as the name implies, small
scale commercial activities are permitted; these include professional offices, business services,
and a combination of residential and business uses within a dwelling. There appear to be several
such properties in this area that were in existence prior to the adoption of zoning that have
become conforming as a result of this designation.
RC and RR districts have larger minimum lot sizes for single family dwellings, 40,000 and
60,000 square feet, respectively. These larger lot sizes are a result of the need to accommodate
both on-site wells and septic systems. Given modern sanitary codes for distance separation
between these uses and the need to find permeable soils, it is sound practice to require such lot
sizes in order to insure the health and safety of future residents. There is one large RC district in
the Pondville section of east Auburn, with a large amount of land remaining to be developed.
Land Use and Zoning
17
According to the Build-Out Analysis, about 450 acres are available, upon which landowners
could develop about 270 new lots. The RR district encompasses most of the remaining rural areas
of west and south Auburn. While there have been scattered subdivisions, most of the development
that has occurred has been along existing street frontage as ANR development. Large interior
areas remain undeveloped due to topographic constraints. While over 2,000 acres are available
for development, only about 824 house lots could be created due to the minimum lot size and
environmental constraints in the district.
The Master Plan Committee gave a great deal of thought to lowering lot sizes in the RC and RR
districts. As the largest remaining areas in Auburn yet to witness large-scale development,
smaller lot sizes would provide a significant opportunity to meet the need for single family
subdivision development similar to the type of growth that has occurred elsewhere in the Town.
Ultimately, however, the Committee achieved a consensus to leave the existing dimensional
standards in place. The principal reasons for this decision include: the cost and difficulty of
extending water and sewer systems; rural roads would need to be upgraded to accommodate the
additional traffic generated from full development; steep slopes and erodible soils can have
negative environmental consequences if disturbed; the area maintains a pleasant rural character
that attracts those that prefer a certain lifestyle; the extensive open space provides habitat needed
to support indigenous wildlife, especially in conjunction with rural areas in the surrounding towns
of Leicester, Oxford, and Millbury; and a large number of single family homes could have the
effect of adding an influx of new students to the Auburn school system while also placing
demands for other municipal services for which the Town is unprepared to meet. The Master Plan
recommends the use of open space residential development if landowners are willing to extend
water and sewer services at their own expense. Under existing regulations, lot sizes can be
reduced to 30,000 square feet if sewers are present.
Non-Residential Districts
Auburn contains two commercial districts and three industrial districts. Combined, 17% of
Auburn is zoned for non-residential purposes. The two commercial districts, Local Business and
Highway Business, allow a wide variety of business services. The LB district encompasses the
area along Southbridge Street from north of Drury Square to the Massachusetts Turnpike. It was
originally intended to provide a cohesive area to provide small and perhaps medium sized
businesses to meet the needs of the local populace. Over time, however, it has developed in a
much different manner than anticipated. Due to strong market forces and excellent highway
system, the LB district has developed with major retail tenants. The Auburn Mall, for example, is
located in the LB district, as are several large retail developments (Toys R Us, Staples, Petco) and
a combination of automobile services, restaurants, and office uses. There is little land in the
district that has not yet been developed. Lots are small and are constrained by 1-290 to the west
and the railroad to the east. Drury Square is located here, but has lost any semblance as a cohesive
village center. Several civic uses are also located in the district, including the High School, Fire
Station, and Auburn Public Library.
The Highway Business (HB) District is the principal location for commercial services in Auburn.
The HB district includes large areas of Routes 12 and 20, and the Route 12/20 overlap area. Much
of the new commercial development discussed above has taken place in this district. It covers 7%
of Auburn’s land area and is nearly fully built-out today. Based upon 1999 land use data, the
Build-Out Analysis identified 136 acres of vacant land that could accommodate almost 300,000
square feet of new non-residential development. At the beginning of 2006, it is likely that a great
deal of this land has been developed in the intervening years. Future development in the district
will likely take place as redevelopment projects of older retail centers built in the decades of the
Land Use and Zoning
18
1940s and ‘50s. Consequently, the principal development issues for the HB district center on
correcting mistakes of the past. Redevelopment offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
change the pattern and character of Auburn’s most identifiable feature.
This Plan recommends two major thrusts to improving the function and appearance of the HB
district. First, different parts of the district have different character, and these areas require
different zoning treatment. It is proposed to create an HB1 and HB2 district for higher intensity
and lower intensity development respectively. The HB1 district will continue to encourage large
retail and commercial services that have high traffic generation impacts. HB2 will be designed to
allow extensive developments that require large land areas but have much lower traffic generation
characteristics. For example, auto dealers, furniture stores, wholesale and distribution uses,
offices uses, etc. as a rule do not generate the high volumes of traffic during the day that
accompanies retail sales.
The second major thrust for restructuring the HB district entails the development of new design
standards to achieve more efficient site design and more aesthetically pleasing appearance.
Access management controls should be adopted to better control the traffic impacts on the
highways and insure better internal vehicular flow. Parking lot standards should be revised to
insure that large vacant expanses of asphalt do not overwhelm the appearance of the property.
More specific landscaping requirements should be adopted to soften the impact of new
development and assist with natural means of storm water runoff. Building standards can make
projects more functional and interesting, through the use of fenestration, architectural detail, and
building layout. Site design should incorporate features for pedestrians to promote safety and
make walking a more pleasant experience. And finally, given the proximity of commercial uses to
residential neighbors in many cases, site design should employ the use of screening and buffering
techniques to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding properties.
Auburn has three industrial districts, General Industrial (GI), Industrial A (IA), and Industrial
Park (IP). IA encompasses the solid waste transfer station and related facilities in west Auburn by
Hardscrabble Road. Public water and sewer service does yet not extend to this area. As a result,
appropriate industrial uses here are trucking related or assembly operations that do not have
industrial processes that generate wastewater.
The IP district includes several locations. The recently developed Westec Industrial Park on the
south side of Route 20 is in an IP district. This park has helped to spur high quality economic
development but has few lots remaining. A large IP district is located on the northerly side of
Route 20 that has remained relatively undeveloped due to the presence of a large system of
wetlands and streams that pose significant difficulties for industrial development. A few large
landowners may be able to work together to jointly plan for an office or research park in this area.
A third IP district includes the Auburn Industrial Park in north Auburn by Sword Street. Many of
Auburn’s major industries are locate here, but little land is left for additional development.
The GI district includes the Millbury Street/Technology Drive industrial area. Several large
employers operate here and make significant contributions to the local economy. But once again,
there are few opportunities for future growth in this area.
A second GI district occurs in north Auburn along the western side of Route 12 between Drury
Square and the Worcester line. The northern part of the district contains older industrial
properties that are now in a state of disrepair. A large part of the district is also constrained by
flood plains and wetlands. The eastern side of Route 12 is zoned HB and contains a number of
unsightly commercial properties. This part of the Route 12 Corridor is in need of significant
Land Use and Zoning
19
public and private investment to drastically improve its appearance. Given high land values in
Auburn, strong market forces, and close proximity to Worcester, this area has the potential to
become a productive economic contributor. The area should be re-developed with the concept
that it can become a major Gateway into Auburn from Worcester. A consistent zoning pattern
should be adopted for both sides of Route 12 to promote cohesive development. Design standards
should be developed specific to this location that take into account its past history, current lot
pattern, market potential and environmental constraints.
As a general rule, most of the good industrial land has already been put into use, and what
remains will have to be carefully developed to minimize environmental impacts. There is also
little opportunity to re-zone additional land for industry. The principal requirements of proximity
to public water and sewer systems, relatively flat land without wetlands and flood plains, and
easy access to interstate highways via well constructed roads, make it hard to find suitable land in
a mature community like Auburn. Limited future industrial development will likely take place
within industrial areas wherever developable parcels can be found.
There is one additional factor that can affect Auburn’s future commercial and industrial growth.
Building heights are limited to 25’ in LB and HB districts and to 35’ in all three industrial
districts. (Height may be increased to 35’ in HB by special permit.) The Master Plan Committee
considered increasing the height limit to 50’ in portions of the HB district where Route 12 and 20
overlap as well as in the IP district on the westerly side of Route 20. This would allow a greater
intensity of development than is presently permitted, and would promote office and R&D
developments, uses Auburn should cultivate to provide greater economic diversity. However, at
public forums and during the Planning Board’s review of the Plan, this proposal was not
supported. There is concern that increasing the height limit would have a serious negative impact
on residential neighborhoods due to the close proximity of commercial uses in many locations.
Overlay Districts
Auburn has adopted four zoning overlay districts to provide additional protections or regulations
on significant land use issues of concern to the community. These districts are shown on Map 3.
Table 9 displays the acreages covered by these districts. Brief descriptions are presented below.
Table 9
Zoning Overlay Districts
1.
Code
District
Acres
RM
Regional Mall Overlay
AP
% of
Town
62.5
0.6%
Aquifer Protection
3,755.0
35.7%
WP
Watershed Protection
4,478.5
42.5%
FP
Flood Plain
1,223.7
11.6%
MU
Mixed Use
125.8
1.2%
Aquifer and Watershed Protection Overlay District
The Aquifer and Watershed Protection District is intended to safeguard the Town’s municipal
well fields from contamination. As an overlay district, underlying district regulations remain in
Land Use and Zoning
20
place, but this district imposes additional restrictions on how land may be used. The bylaw has
been determined by DEP to not fully comply with state requirements for regulating land use in
areas that contribute water to public wells. State and local officials should work together to
identify the areas where the Bylaw does not comply and to bring proposed revisions to Town
Meeting for adoption. Compliance with state requirements is needed in order to receive a permit
to construct a new water source.
The district contains two regulatory areas. The aquifer protection area refers to the Zone II of the
municipal wells, or that area that contributes recharge directly to the wells during periods of
heavy demand and extreme drought conditions (180 days of pumping with no precipitation). The
watershed protection area, or Zone III, encompasses the land which contributes surface water to
the recharge areas of the wells. The bylaw sets forth the permitted and prohibited uses in each
area and specifies the performance standards that must be met in order for potentially
contaminating land uses to proceed. Since Zone II requires a higher level of protection, many
such uses are prohibited, for example, truck terminals, auto service stations, car washes, landfills,
salvage yards, etc. Zone III areas allow such uses by special permit in order to allow local land
use boards to carefully review proposed activities and require mitigation to protect the water
supplies. In order to minimize nitrate loading caused by on-site septic systems, the bylaw
stipulates that residential uses must have a lot area of 40,000 sq. ft. per unit if the lot is not
connected to the public sewer system. Finally, the amount of impervious surface on a lot is
limited to 15% of the lot, or 2,500 sq. ft., unless a system of artificial recharge is constructed to
direct precipitation back into the ground water.
2. Regional Mall Overlay District
When the owners of the Auburn Mall proposed plans for expansion in the mid-1990’s, Town
Meeting adopted the Regional Mall Overlay District (RM) to regulate the development process
due to the particularly complex issues involved in this situation. The overlay district encompasses
the existing mall and additional adjacent property. A wide variety of commercial uses are
permitted either by special permit or site plan approval, while industrial and residential uses are
prohibited. Building heights are limited to 35’, and the total size of a regional mall may not
exceed 990,000 square feet. To minimize unneeded parking, the Planning Board by special permit
may authorize fewer spaces than would otherwise be required if the parking standards for each
use considered individually were totaled. The Board is also given authority to require traffic
mitigation measures in order to reduce traffic impacts at key locations. Other standards set forth
the Town’s objectives of improving internal traffic circulation, enhancing pedestrian safety,
minimizing the visual impact of the large building mass, and reducing storm water impacts.
While some room exists within the district for expansion, there are no plans to do so at this time.
3. Flood Plain
See discussion on flood plain protection in the Open Space and Recreation Chapter of this Plan.
4. Mixed Use Overlay District
The Mixed Use Overlay District (MU) was recommended in the 1987 Master Plan. Town
Meeting subsequently adopted the bylaw and created one MU district, which is displayed on Map
3. This area lies on the south side of Route 20 and west of I-395. The provisions of the bylaw
have never been exercised. Because of its valuable location for commercial purposes, the land
zoned HB has been developed for “big box” retail, including BJ’s and Home Depot. Land to the
south is zoned Rural Residential and still remains available for this purpose.
Land Use and Zoning
21
Map 3
Zoning Overlay Map
Land Use and Zoning
22
The MU District allows a mixture of residential, open space and commercial uses by special
permit of the Planning Board. Residential uses are permitted above the ground floor. Business
uses are permitted within the first 3 floors and may include restaurants, theaters, retail sales,
financial services, and professional offices. To provide the density needed to make such projects
successful, there is no minimum lot size or area requirements, and buildings may rise to 70’ in
height. The intent of the bylaw is certainly laudable and is consistent with statewide initiatives to
promote Smart Growth. In many respects, this bylaw was ahead of its time. However, since the
overlay concept has not been used, and since it is desirable to promote this use in other
appropriate locations, this bylaw should be revised to allow mixed use developments as a special
permit use in HB, LB, and Village districts.
LAND USE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal 1: Revitalize Drury Square to make it a focal point of community life. The square should
contain a variety of commercial and civic uses and should be re-designed to accommodate small-scale
retail and service uses.
Objectives:
♦ To help create a strong and unique identity for the square, a redevelopment study should be
completed to help devise design guidelines that can achieve a pedestrian-oriented, village-style
arrangement that will unify the random land use pattern that currently exists.
♦ The Town should invest in its municipal infrastructure in ways that improve the streetscape
appearance, e.g. through sidewalks, landscaping, lighting fixtures, street furniture, etc.
♦ Landowners should work with local officials during re-development projects to insure private
investment is consistent with the long-range plan.
Goal 2: Re-develop major entrances into Auburn as gateways that reflect favorably on Auburn as a
desirable community in which to live and work.
Objectives:
♦ Consider zoning amendments that promote desirable developments and contain design guidelines
at these key entry-ways.
♦ Acquire important open space parcels along major thoroughfares and enhance with cultural
amenities to offer variety and interest as a counterpoint to commercial development.
♦ Work with local volunteer organizations to develop appropriate signage and landscaping themes
to welcome visitors to Auburn.
♦ Seek tourism or road improvement grants if possible to help fund public improvements.
Goal 3: Promote a strong, diversified economic base through development and redevelopment in
Auburn’s industrial parks and along its commercial corridors.
Objectives:
♦ Promote office development and high tech R&D industries in order to diversify the local
economy, yielding high paying jobs and producing substantial increases in tax revenue from high
value buildings.
Land Use and Zoning
23
♦ Create a new Highway Business district and revise the Schedule of Use Regulations to promote
appropriate commercial development along portions of Routes 12 and 20 with similar character.
♦ Develop new design guidelines for commercial development that minimize the strip commercial
character of past developments. These guidelines should include standards for landscaping,
vehicular access, building orientation, signage, lighting, pedestrian amenities, etc. that will yield
more cohesive and aesthetically pleasing developments when property is developed or redeveloped.
Goal 4: Diversify housing opportunities in Auburn and encourage alternatives to expensive single
family subdivisions.
Objectives:
♦ Develop bylaws and regulations for senior housing and accessory apartments.
♦ Revise the Mixed Use Development bylaw to encourage its use in appropriate locations along
major thoroughfares.
♦ Promote affordable housing that will assist Auburn residents in achieving the dream of
homeownership.
♦ Adopt additional regulations for market-rate multi-family housing to promote greater diversity in
Auburn’s housing stock while insuring adverse impacts on adjacent neighborhoods are
minimized.
Goal 5: Still rural areas of Auburn should be maintained at low density. Residential developments
should be designed to preserve open space, protect natural resources, and have visual compatibility
with the character of Auburn.
Objectives:
♦ Revise the Open Space Residential Development bylaw to encourage greater use in Rural
Residential and Residential C districts where large tracts of open space remain.
♦ Where landowners are willing to extend water and sewer systems to rural areas, smaller lot sizes
should be permitted in exchange for preservation of areas with high natural resource values.
♦ Revise Subdivision Regulations to contain design standards that are appropriate to Auburn’s rural
countryside and that minimize excessive land alteration and forest clearance.
Goal 6: Promote Smart Growth concepts. New development should be compact in form, contain a
mix of land uses, be of greater intensity, accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, and
preserve significant open space and sensitive natural resources.
Objectives:
♦ Revise zoning and subdivision regulations to incorporate concepts of Smart Growth that are
applicable to Auburn.
♦ Monitor development trends over time. The Planning Board and Board of Appeals should
periodically review the results of its decisions, and fine-tune growth controls in order to minimize
the cost of municipal services while achieving high quality development.
Land Use and Zoning
24
♦ Reinforce Auburn’s small town heritage through preservation of its historic and cultural
properties and sites.
♦ Adopt stormwater management controls consistent with the Town’s Stormwater Management
Plan and hire additional staff to monitor development and enforce environmental protection
policies.
LAND USE AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Establish a new position of Land Use Enforcement Officer to conduct inspections of new
developments and insure storm water management requirements, as well as conditions of
approval, are fully complied with. Inspection functions should be centralized and shared by
various land use boards.
2. Adopt a Senior Residential Development Bylaw, either as an overlay district or as a special
permit use in certain districts.
3. Consider an inclusionary zoning bylaw that requires 10% of the units in a subdivision to be
set aside for low and moderate income households. Such units will add to the town’s
affordable housing inventory as defined by MGL c. 40B.
4. Allow accessory apartments, but limit the size of such units to 1 bedroom.
5. Adopt new requirements for multi-family housing to include standards for design, neighborhood compatibility, and environmental protection. Allow in HB with site plan approval.
Currently a special permit is required.
6. Revise the Open Space Residential Development Bylaw to make it more attractive for
developers. Consider making it a by-right use allowed with site plan approval rather than
requiring a special permit. Or, require subdivisions to be designed as OSRDs unless a
conventional plan is approved by the Planning Board.
7. In RR, leave the 60,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size alone, but encourage use of the OSRD
bylaw, which allows smaller lot sizes if the developer is willing to extend sewers to the site at
his/her own expense.
8. Revise the Aquifer and Watershed Protection and Overlay District to comply with DEP
regulations.
9. Revise the Mixed Use Development Overlay district bylaw since it has not been used since its
adoption after the last Master Plan. Consider revising the overlay district approach and
making mixed use developments a permitted use in certain districts.
10. No zoning map changes are recommended from residential to commercial or industrial. The
following changes are recommended in order to better manage commercial development in
Auburn:
a. create a new HB-1 district from the existing HB zoning along the Rt. 12/20 overlap;
b. consider appropriate rezoning for the Route 12 corridor between Drury Square and the
Worcester line to serve as a Gateway into Auburn; revise use regulations and adopt new
design standards to revitalize this under-utilized area;
c. prepare a Village district bylaw that guides development in Drury Square. Identify the
specific land uses that are appropriate and specify design standards that will create a
pedestrian oriented village.
Land Use and Zoning
25
11. Revise use regulations along Route 20 east of I-290/395 to reduce retail activity, encourage
uses that are not high traffic generators, and allow for significant office development in an
effort to create high end office and R&D uses that will raise the average wage in Auburn.
12. Adopt an Access Management Bylaw to control motor vehicle access to new developments.
13. Revise the sign provisions of the Zoning Bylaw that will allow reasonable advertisement for
business purposes while enhancing community safety and aesthetics. Establish a task force of
business owners and planners to craft acceptable sign controls that will improve the
appearance of signs in Auburn.
14. Review parking standards to insure a reasonable number of spaces is required to meet the
need, yet avoid unnecessary pavement to prevent parking from being the dominant visual
element of commercial development. Consider allowing sharing of parking where appropriate
and encouraging landowners to make connections between lots to improve internal
circulation.
15. Review and amend the Subdivision Regulations’ design standards to insure they provide high
quality road and infrastructure improvements that are in keeping with the character of
surrounding neighborhood, minimize environmental disruption, and result in long-lasting
improvements that minimize town maintenance costs. Review Subdivision street width
standards to determine if narrower streets are feasible without compromising public safety.
16. Adopt Phase 2 Storm Water Management bylaws as recommended in the town’s Storm Water
Plan.
17. Adopt new design standards for commercial development.
a. Dimensional
1. Limit the percentage of a lot that may be covered by impervious surfaces.
2. Establish maximum setback to prevent vast expanses of parking in front of buildings.
(HB has minimum setback of 40’.)
3. Increase height limit to allow for higher density in Industrial districts and for mixed
use development.
b. Landscaping
1. Require trees to be planted along the street frontage.
2. Require interior parking lot plantings to break up large expanses of pavement.
3. Preserve natural features as site amenities.
c. Access
1. Encourage divided access with landscaped traffic islands.
2. Improve entryway appearance through the use of landscaping, fencing and other
treatments based on local traditions.
3. Encourage shared driveways to minimize curb cuts.
d. Parking
1. Encourage connections between adjacent properties.
2. Revise parking ratios to balance the need for a reasonable number of spaces to meet
business needs with the desire to enhance site design and improve the quality and
appearance of commercial development.
Land Use and Zoning
26
3. Allow sharing of parking when adjacent uses have different hours of operation.
4. To minimize parking lots as the dominant visual element, limit parking in front of
buildings and place in rear or side.
e. Pedestrian
1. Provide internal pathways from parking lots to store fronts.
2. Provide sidewalks that encourage walking.
f.
Lighting
1. Require cutoffs to prevent light trespass and reduce glare.
2. Limit pole heights and specify illumination standards.
g. Fenestration
1. Require retail uses, restaurants, etc. to have a percentage of their fronts as clear
window area.
2. Prevent large extents of blank wall space when backs of buildings have frontage on a
second street.
h. Architecture
1. Structures should contain pitched roofs, breaks in roofs and wall lines, and variation
in detail to provide visual interest.
2. Require franchises to avoid “cookie-cutter” designs.
i.
Screening
1. Require utility structures to be screened from view by use of natural materials (wood
fencing, evergreens, stone, etc.)
j.
Buffers
1. Require deeper setbacks when commercial uses abut residential uses.
2. Provide landscaping, fencing etc. to shield residences from commercial uses, e.g.
views, noise, lighting, etc.
k. General
1. Consider the use of incentives to promote redevelopment of older commercial
properties incorporating many of these design considerations.
Land Use and Zoning
27
CHAPTER 3:
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
New growth in a community places increased demands for services upon municipal departments.
Most prominently, new single-family homes can bring about the need to construct expensive
schools, which can have a dramatic effect upon municipal operating budgets and long-term debt.
In addition, new developments bring about the need for increased maintenance of roads, may
overtax the capacity of water and sewer systems, and will place added demands upon police and
fire departments. New residents may also call for improved services by municipal departments
such as libraries and senior centers.
Therefore, it is important to consider the
ability of municipal operations to
accommodate new growth. By bringing
about a need to expand services, growth
affects the ability of the community to pay
for services needed by residents. While it
is true that additional revenue flows to
Town coffers, growth may not pay its
own way. Capital building and equipment
costs, as well as yearly operational
expenses that result from new growth,
may cost more than the new revenue that
is generated. Hard choices must be made,
and prudent fiscal planning is needed in
order to insure that the Town is using its
limited resources as efficiently as possible.
This chapter examines the status of many municipal departments that provide direct services to
residents and businesses. It looks at existing conditions and identifies long-term needs of the
departments in areas such as capital equipment, buildings, personnel, and technology. Auburn has
been able to provide quality services while managing to keep its tax rate relatively low.
Equipment and facility needs are provided to municipal departments through a predictable and
orderly capital facility planning process. However, many building needs have been deferred and
will need to be addressed in the years ahead. Many of the Town’s buildings were built during the
Town’s major growth spurt in the post World Ware II era and now have become deficient in the
amount and type of space provided. Not all of the capital needs will be able to be satisfied in the
near-term. This chapter summarizes the principal needs of the community for capital buildings
and facilities in order to set forth an agenda for future expenditures in an organized and logical
fashion. Map 4 displays the location of the Town’s public facilities.
Public Facilities and Services
28
Map 4
Municipal Facilities Map
29
NEEDS OF MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS
Auburn Public Library
Existing Conditions
An elected Board of Trustees governs the public library. There are 6 commissioners, each elected
to 3-year terms. Including the Director, the Library has a fulltime staff of five employees. The
Director outlines policies for adoption by the board and is responsible for day-to-day
management. The existing Library is located at 369 Southbridge St. and was built in 1967. The
facility contains approximately 14,500 square feet. The Library offers a variety of cultural
services for local residents. These include two adult reading groups, a poetry roundtable, and a
knitting club. It also offers numerous programs for children beginning in infancy. The Library
offers services that seek to provide cultural enrichment for the community and offer residents of
all ages access to print and electronic media.
According to the state Board of Library
Commissioners, Auburn had a total
circulation of 191,000 items in FY 2004,
of which print materials exceeded
142,000 items. Direct circulation per
capita amounted to 11.73 items per
person. Auburn exceeded the statewide
average of 9.73 items per capita for a
community its size. The Library loaned
over 12,000 items, and in turn received
over 8,700 items. Auburn has a total of
approximately 95,000 items, or about 5.83
per capita. The Auburn Library hosted
238 programs during FY 2004, compared
to the State average of 218 programs for
similar sized libraries. Finally, Auburn spends somewhat less per capita for its Library than
comparable communities. In FY 2004, Auburn appropriated a total of $27.35 per capita compared
to the State average of $32.04 for similar sized communities.
Existing Needs and Deficiencies
The existing facility is under-sized for a community of over 16,000 residents, and additional
space has been a long-standing concern of the Board. The facility cannot accommodate the
growing demands for its services by the public. As a result the Library Needs Committee has
proposed a plan to build a new facility of 25,000 square feet. The upgraded Library would have
15,700 square feet on the first floor and 23,950 square feet on the second floor. It would hold
171,545 items, almost double the holdings of the current Library. The new facility would contain
a children’s room much larger than the existing space. An expanded meeting room is also planned
to hold 130 people, more than twice the number that can be accommodated at present.
The cost of the new building program is estimated at over $14 million. The Trustees intend to
apply for a Public Library Construction Grant for about $3.6 million from the Mass. Board of
Library Commissioners to help offset the financial impact on the Town.
30
School Department
Existing Conditions
The administrative offices of the School Department are located in the former Randall School at 5
West St. The School Department shares space in the building with the Fire Department’s West
Auburn Fire Station. The Department operates four elementary schools, a Middle School and a
High School. Existing facilities and their current enrollments are listed below:
Table 10
School Facilities
School
Location
Grade
2004-2005
Enrollment
Bryn Mawr
35 Swanson Rd.
K-2
286
Mary D. Stone
10 Church St.
K-2
294
Julia Bancroft
Oxford and Vinal Sts.
3-5
296
Pakachoag
110 Pakachoag St.
3-5
311
Middle School
10 Swanson Rd.
6-8
583
High School
99 Auburn St.
9-12
633
Source: “Setting a Vision for the Future, A Report Regarding Building Capacity,
Existing Conditions, and Enrollment for the Auburn Public Schools”, January 2005
The total enrollment of the Auburn School District for the 2004-2005 school year is
approximately 2,403 students. All of the elementary schools have considerable age and the Town
will need to address improvements/additions/new construction to its elementary schools in the
not-too-distant future. According to the Building Capacity Report cited above, future enrollment
projections could reach 2,554 students by 2010 under a “high growth scenario.” However, the
Department has not done a rigorous student enrollment projection study to identify long-range
trends and provide a sound basis for quantifying school space needs into the future. The
Department should undertake such a study in develop a better understanding of the long-term
space needs of the Auburn school system.
Currently under construction is a new three-story High School on Auburn Street on the site of the
existing High School. The project included the purchase of the Holstrom Building on Auburn St.
and parcels on Walsh Ave. New recreational facilities will be constructed as part of the
development plan, including football, baseball, softball and soccer fields, a new track, five tennis
courts, and a basketball court. The new school will contain about 170,000 square feet of space
and parking for 420 vehicles. The low bid for the project was $33.6 million. Auburn is eligible for
state assistance of about 65% of the cost of the project. The school is expected to open in 2006.
Various educational indicators are available that compare the Auburn system with that of the state
as a whole. Some of the more relevant statistics for the entire District are listed below:
31
Table 11
Selected School Performance Indicators
Indicator
Auburn
State
Grade 9-12 Dropout Rate
1.0%
3.3%
Attendance Rate
95%
93.9%
99.6%
93.0%
14.6 to 1
13.1 to 1
91.4%
89.8%
4.4
4.8
% of Core Academic Teachers
Identified as Highly Qualified
Student Teacher Ratio
Children Attending Public Schools
Students per Computer
Source: Department of Education
The Auburn School System compares quite favorably with its state counterparts. The dropout
rate, attendance rate, children attending public schools, and students per computer are more
favorable than the state figures. Auburn has a significantly higher rate of teachers identified as
highly qualified. However, Auburn’s student teacher ratio at 14.6 is higher than the statewide
average of 13.1.
Auburn has taken a big step forward with its approval to replace the High School. The new
building will provide room for growth in the high school population and resolve a long-standing
space shortage at the old High School. However, the Auburn Elementary Schools are all showing
the signs of extreme age and do not offer easy potential for expansion. With a decline in recent
years in the student population, it is unlikely that a new elementary school will be required in the
near-term; however, recent development trends indicate that the enrollment situation should be
carefully monitored, and a school projection study should be performed to quantify the need for a
new school. Whether a new elementary school is eventually needed, over the near-term the Town
will be required to provide sufficient funds to repair the physical facilities of the existing schools.
Presented below is a brief summary of conditions at the existing Middle and Elementary Schools.
Auburn Middle School:
Year Built: 1959
Size: 59,000 square feet. The school
expanded by 25% in 1972, and 4 modular
classrooms were added in the 1990’s.
Expansion Potential: Limited due to
development surrounding the campus.
Playing fields would be lost to accommodate
an addition.
Difficulties:
Limited
parking,
despite
expansion of the parking lot.
recent
32
Minimal handicapped accessibility.
Library/media center is undersized.
Lack of meeting space and limited storage space.
Cafeteria cannot accommodate a full grade-level lunch.
Permanently divided gymnasium hinders use of the space.
Mechanical systems date from original school and are in need of replacement.
Bryn Mawr Elementary
Year Built: 1948
Size: 25,000 square feet. Two modular classrooms were added at a later date.
Expansion Potential: Limited due to development surrounding the school. If Auburn decides to
offer a full-day kindergarten, a permanent addition is needed.
The two modular classrooms should be replaced with a permanent addition.
Permanent art and music rooms are a high priority.
Difficulties:
The parking lot, while sufficient to accommodate staff, is insufficient for evening activities.
Overall, the school is in good condition, although there are needs to improve HVAC,
electrical and plumbing systems.
Roof leaks must be repaired or a replacement roof installed.
Asbestos abatement is needed.
General maintenance is necessary for windows, exterior brick, eaves, the gym floor,
sidewalks, handicapped ramp, gutters and downspouts.
Julia Bancroft Elementary
Year Built: 1917
Size: A 1956 addition included a gym/auditorium/cafeteria and 8 classrooms. Two modular
classrooms were added in the late 1990’s.
Expansion Potential: Limited due to development surrounding the school.
Difficulties:
The school does not have an elevator.
Parking is limited and student drop-off
areas are poorly defined. Bus traffic
interferes with parent parking in the
morning and afternoon.
The ball field adjacent to the school is
in need of repair.
The school
challenges.
has
significant
space
The 1917 building lacks ventilation and
windows do not open property.
33
Mechanical systems date from the 1917 construction.
HVAC systems are sorely in need of replacement.
Recent plumbing retrofits solved some problems, but more work is needed.
Mary D. Stone Elementary
Year Built: 1927
Size: An addition was added in 1955. Total size is 30,405 square feet.
Expansion Potential: Limited due to development surrounding the school. The school abuts the
Auburn Town Hall and has limited parking. There is no dedicated bus loop for discharge and
pickup of students. There is no room for expansion unless an adjacent property is purchased.
Difficulties:
The school is not ADA compliant. The gym, cafeteria and auditorium are one multi-purpose
space. Art, music and media center are undersized.
Overall the school is in good condition but needs upgrades in several areas.
One boiler was replaced in 2003, but the 1955 boiler is original.
HVAC, electrical, and plumbing upgrades are needed.
Exterior repairs are needed, and a study of the slate roof on the 1927 building is underway.
Pakachoag Elementary
Year Built: 1929
Size: An addition was added in 1961. Total size is 26,500 square feet. Two modular classrooms
were added in the late 1990’s.
Expansion Potential: Limited.
Difficulties:
The school is ADA compliant, but there is inadequate storage for instructional and custodial
supplies.
Overall the school is in good condition but needs upgrades in several areas.
HVAC, electrical, and plumbing upgrades are needed.
Water intrusion requires attention. Brick needs re-pointing and the garage roof leaks.
Sidewalks around the building need repair and the parking lot is heavily cracked.
Randall Elementary
Year Built: 1960. The school closed in 1981 and was converted to administrative offices for the
school district. A portion of the school now houses the West Auburn Fire Department Substation.
Repairs were made to that portion of the building in 1983.
Size: 21,000 square feet.
34
Expansion Potential: Limited. The existing ball field is heavily used by the Town’s soccer
program but could be converted for a school building.
Difficulties:
The building has not been well maintained and would require significant expenditures to
reactivate it as a school facility.
Administrative offices would have to be re-located. A new home would need to be provided
for the West Auburn Fire Station.
Mechanical systems are original and windows are not heat efficient.
Exterior brick needs re-pointing and wood fascia needs repair.
Auburn Fire Department
Existing Conditions
The Auburn Fire Department is headed
by a Chief appointed under the Strong
Chiefs Act. The Department consists of
19 career firefighters and 25 call
firefighters, one of who is Deputy Chief.
The Department is responsible for fire
suppression and prevention, ambulance
services, technical rescue and public
education. The Department also has a
contract with the Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority to respond to
emergencies on the Turnpike, for which
expenses are reimbursed.
In 2003, Auburn passed a Proposition
2½ Override to allow an increase in personnel, and the Department was able to hire eight fulltime firefighters as a result. These additional firefighters allowed the Town to implement fullservice fire protection around the clock. Rising costs in other areas, equipment and building
maintenance in particular, prevent the Department from becoming more proactive in meeting
needs created by an increasing volume of calls for service.
The level of activity of the Fire Department is shown in Table 12 below as reported by the
Department to the State Fire Marshall as part of the Mass. Fire Incident Reporting System, A total
of 70 fires were reported in 2003, a reduction of 16 from the 2002 report of 86 fires. This
reduction can be attributed to factors such as improved fire and building codes, and educational
efforts to increase citizen awareness of potential fire hazards.
35
Table 12
2003 Fire Experience
Structure Fires:
24
Civilian Deaths:
0
Vehicle Fires:
28
Civilian Injuries:
1
Other Fires:
18
Fire Service Deaths:
0
Total:
70
Fire Service Injuries:
0
Source: “Annual Report of the Mass. Fire Incident Reporting System,
2003”, Mass. Dept. of Fire Safety
The rolling stock is in good condition as the Town’s Capital Improvement Plan has allowed the
purchase of upgrades in a timely manner. A second ambulance would significantly improve the
Department’s capacity, as would a second ladder truck. Advanced firefighter location software,
currently under development, would significantly improve safety in large building fires. The
Department also seeks to purchase a multi-purpose utility vehicle to enhance its capacity to fight
brush fires and perform rescue operations in remote areas.
While the Town’s Proposition 2½ Override made a measurable difference in the ability of the
Department to improve its services and reduce fire loss, the Department is still understaffed. New
commercial and residential growth in Auburn will likely exacerbate the situation. The
Department, for example, can handle only 50% of the ambulance calls in Town, and the sustained
commercial development requires Fire Prevention officials to review more plans of ever
increasing complexity. The Fire Chief is concerned that the Department still does not meet NFPA
Regulation 1710, which requires that an engine staffed with four firefighters be on the road in
response to a call within one minute, and that all equipment and personnel necessary to fight a
fire be on the scene within four minutes.
The Fire Department buildings contain a Headquarters and one Substation. The Headquarters was
built in 1964, is fully occupied, and cannot be further expanded. As noted above, the School and
Fire Departments share space in the former Randall School on West St. The Substation serves
West Auburn and plays an integral role in providing timely emergency response. Should the
School Department seek to reactivate the old school, new quarters will have to be provided for
the Fire Department to house the existing apparatus. To plan for such an outcome, a new location
for a larger, centrally located headquarters should be identified. If such a site cannot be found or
proves too costly, two decentralized stations will be necessary.
Management Information Systems
Existing Conditions
The Department is generally responsible for the installation, maintenance, repair and direction of
the Town government’s computer hardware, software and computer networks. Additional
responsibilities include technological systems such as telecommunications, networks, operations,
and support. The Department has a full-time Director and a part-time Assistant to the Director.
The budget for the Department increased significantly in recent years primarily because the
position of MIS Director has been upgraded to a full-time equivalent for the Town. Smaller
36
increases have encompassed purchase of equipment, software and licensing costs as these have
been incorporated into the annual operating budget.
On a daily basis the Department must confront the following trends:
Additional technology and infrastructure requires new hardware in an accelerated time frame.
The types of data being managed by all departments often require more sophisticated and
expensive hardware and software.
The mechanisms required to enforce MIS policies, particularly for security and data storage,
are more costly and time consuming to administer.
While staff training will still be provided in-house, the cost of doing so will require additional
man-hours.
Equipment systems are in generally good working order; however, server facilities will be moved
from Town Hall to the Merriam Building. In order to provide a robust operating environment
there, approximately $10,000 of work will need to be performed. While the Department has
sufficient resources to maintain the status quo, the Director finds it difficult to properly meet the
increasing technological needs of the Town predicted for the future. For example, there is a need
for redundancy in systems that require additional funding, as well as the need to keep systems upto-date.
The Director believes that, compared to national averages, Auburn lacks sufficient staff, its
network is generally too slow, and it lags behind federal and state network procedures for
information storage and security. From a technological perspective, the overwhelming issue
facing the MIS Department, which affects all aspects of Auburn’s government, is security.
In order to insure Auburn keeps apace with technological changes, the following additional needs
must be addressed:
Auburn should implement a fully functional Geographic Information System (GIS) that
provides Town staff, municipal officials, and citizens with locationally accurate data
concerning infrastructure systems (water, sewer, storm sewer, roads), land use records and
parcels, aerial photography, natural resources, and demographic data. Such a system will help
to insure future development takes place in an environmentally conscious way, will help
planning staff to identify potential impacts of new development before they occur, enable the
Engineering Department to design projects efficiently, and provide the citizens of Auburn
with access to information that affects the future of the Town.
As residents become more computer savvy, there is an opportunity to provide services
electronically, a trend commonly referred to as e-government. Auburn should capitalize on
this trend as a way to offer services more efficiently and at lower cost. Upgrading the Town’s
hardware and software will enable residents to perform routine functions from the comfort of
their home, thereby enabling administrative staff to accomplish other duties. Such tasks that
can be handled over the Internet today include paying bills, filling out permit applications,
and applying for licenses. Internet based technologies can also foster greater public
participation in town affairs and help to promote local events as a way to engage greater
interaction among residents of all ages and backgrounds.
37
Engineering Department
Existing Conditions
The Town Engineer, as a single person department, provides technical engineering support to all
Town departments, boards, committees and commissions. The Engineer interacts with
developers, consulting engineers, state regulatory agencies, citizen groups, and individuals. The
Engineer is responsible for the selection of Town roads to be repaved with local, state, and federal
funds, provides engineering services, and oversees contractors conducting paving work. In recent
years, the Town Engineer has assumed the large task of creating and implementing the Town’s
Storm Water Management Plan, a federal mandate under the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Phase II Stormwater Management Program. The Engineer also reviews and approves roadways
and storm water infrastructure built in new subdivisions and monitors the condition of the Town’s
dams. Finally, as a member of the Development Coordinating Group (DCG) the Town Engineer
lends technical expertise on the review of plans for commercial and residential development.
The most pressing issue facing the Department today is the implementation and enforcement of
the Storm Water Management Plan. The Plan identifies an aggressive schedule for implementing
a five-year Storm Water Management Plan, thoroughly documents the Town’s needs, and offers
many recommendations for short- and long-term actions. It has become apparent that the Town’s
storm water infrastructure is in poor condition and will likely deteriorate further without a
significant increase in funding.
The increase in commercial and residential growth in Auburn is having a detrimental effect on the
local street network. Local roadways are in generally fair condition with a few notable
exceptions. However, the condition of the roads will continue to deteriorate if sufficient resources
are not provided. The Town Engineer confronts the requests from residents for street
improvements on a regular basis, but the limited funding available is insufficient to keep up with
the demands of residents.
The Town Engineer oversees the design and repair of the Town’s dams and is seeking additional
funds to repair other dams in Auburn. The Town’s dams are generally in poor condition, with the
exception of Pondville Pond dam. In 2004, Town Meeting approved $250,000 to repair the
Auburn Pond dam to halt deterioration there. The Town has applied for funding through the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority’s Tourism Grant Program to repair the walls and enlarge the
spillway behind the Auburn Library. And through the efforts of the Leesville Pond Watershed
and Neighborhood Association, funds were secured to repair that seriously impaired facility and
control nuisance vegetation. The Association secured a $120,000 grant from the Rhode-Island
based Narragansett Bay Estuary Project, but had difficulty finding the local match of $60,000.
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority chipped in the funds via a Tourism Grant to the Town.
The grant will fund work to fix the floodgates at the dam and allow operators to draw down the
water level during the winter to eliminate weeds.
Finally, the heavy demands placed upon the Department are more than a single Town Engineer
can handle. Much of the engineering work is performed by outside firms under contract with the
Town. This helps to keep the Town’s personnel costs at a minimum, but increases the complexity
of managing a wide variety of projects. It is important for the Town to not merely react to the
problems of its existing infrastructure, but it should allocate sufficient resources to plan, design
and improve its facilities and enforce regulations for the protection of its resources.
38
Parks Department
Existing Conditions
The Recreation Department is responsible for the maintenance of all outdoor recreation facilities
administered by both the Town and the School Department. The Department is responsible for
preparing the facilities for all sporting events, as well as maintenance of traffic islands,
monuments, and the grounds of the Auburn Police and Fire Departments. As a regular practice,
staff also assist the Highway Surveyor with snowplowing during the winter. No programs are
offered at this time, although swimming instruction used to be offered at Camp Gleason several
years ago. The Town is planning to hire a Parks Director to coordinate community use of the
recreational complex at the new High School and elsewhere throughout the Town.
A three-member Parks Commission oversees all operations; voters elect members to three-year
staggered terms. The Department has five staff members, a Superintendent, a Light Equipment
Mechanic, a Light Equipment Operator, a Laborer and a Secretary. The budget has not increased
for several years, and no longer allows the employment of seasonal labor in the summer;
consequently, certain functions take longer to complete when demand for services is higher.
Costs for materials have escalated as well, making it more difficult to meet expectations of
citizens for high quality services.
The demand for the use of existing outdoor recreational facilities has increased dramatically in
the past several years, primarily from organized sports leagues. This is partly attributable to the
loss of fields during construction of the new High School, and partly to population growth in
Town. The effect has been severe on fields in particular, which do not have sufficient “down
time” to recover from the constant use. Despite regular maintenance, several fields have gradually
but inexorably deteriorated to poor condition.
The Department’s equipment is in generally good condition, and the Capital Improvement Plan
has enabled the Department to meet its needs in a timely manner. However, the increasing
demand for services and new facilities will make it difficult for the Department to sustain its
current commitments unless new resources are added. Construction of the new High School with
its new ball fields and other active recreation facilities, and the development of additional fields at
Pakachoag Hill as a result of the Recreation Committee’s efforts, will require additional staff and
equipment. Additional detail about programs and services offered for residents can be found in
the Open Space and Recreation chapter of this Master Plan.
Auburn Highway Department
Existing Conditions
The Highway Department is responsible for providing safe and well-maintained public roads that
allow for efficient transportation throughout the community. It does so by making general repairs
to roadways; sweeping and plowing streets; and cleaning, repairing and maintaining catch-basins
and culverts to manage storm water run-off. Auburn is one of the few communities where the
Highway Department, rather than individual homeowners, is responsible for clearing sidewalks of
winter snow.
39
An elected Highway Surveyor runs the Department. There is currently a staff of 12 employees,
including a General Foreman, a Working Foreman, seven Heavy Equipment Operators, one
Medium Equipment Operator, one Light Equipment Operator/Laborer and one Administrative
Assistant. The Highway Surveyor also serves as the Town’s Tree Warden. The Department does
not have an independent board or commission responsible for its policies and procedures. The
Highway Surveyor reports to the Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen.
The Department has been level-funded for
the past three years, with the exception of
wage increases negotiated by contracts with
employee unions. Other costs have grown
slowly and steadily during that period for
materials, including asphalt, sand, salt, pipe,
stone and signage. Labor costs have
increased as well, especially for contract
labor for private plowing contractors during
the winter season. In addition, the
Department is at a serious disadvantage in
competing for personnel or services with the
private sector. For example, the wages the
Town can offer its mechanics may be as
little as 60% of what private companies can
offer.
In 2004, there were 92.7 miles of local, accepted public ways in Auburn. The slow but steady
pace of residential development continues to add to the number of miles of public roads for which
the Department is responsible. Most of the additional road miles were built during the 1990s,
when a 15% increase took place. Recent additions have been moderate, with a 3% increase from
the turn of the century. However, that increase has been exacerbated during the period by a loss
of 1-2 staff members due to budget cuts. Commercial development, by contrast, has had little
effect on the level of services required of the Department since most such projects do not create
new public ways for the Department to maintain. The heavily traveled state or federal highways
that crisscross the Town also do not seriously affect the Department since these are primarily the
responsibility of MassHighways, although the Department is responsible for plowing sidewalks
along Route 12. The impact of commercial development has largely been felt in the amount of
traffic on local roads, which has shortened the effective life of highly traveled streets.
The recently implemented Stormwater Management Plan, required by federal regulations, will
have a major impact on the Department during the next three years, primarily by enforcing more
stringent cleaning and maintenance schedules for storm water catch basins.
The current Capital Improvement Program generally allows the Department to replace aging
equipment in a timely fashion, but it does not allow for the purchase of additional equipment that
might benefit the Department. A new vacuum truck would be an example. The Department also
does not have the ability to take advantage of new technology and equipment with its diminished
complement of personnel and the lack of funds for training. Some new technologies cannot be
accessed, and some new equipment, which might make the Department’s operations more
efficient, would require the dedication of particular personnel and would take them away from
more standard operations.
40
Finally, personnel shortages continue to be a serious issue that must be addressed. The
Department is facing continued stress in its ability to perform its responsibilities, primarily
because its resources are inadequate now, and budget difficulties make staff expansions unlikely.
In fact, new road miles will increase with new subdivision development, and existing roads will
continue to slowly deteriorate from normal wear and tear. Both the Town Engineer and Highway
Surveyor favor an increase in the Town’s road maintenance budget in order to properly maintain
the Town’s street infrastructure and meet the residents’ demands for a satisfactory street network.
(See the Transportation chapter of this Plan for additional information on local road issues.)
Water System
Auburn’s Water System consists of two (formerly three) independent Water Districts. The
Auburn Water District is the larger and covers most of the Town. Recently the Auburn Water
District acquired the Woodland Park Water District, which, due to its small size and lagging
capital needs, was unable to adequately manage the system for its customers. The Elm Hill Water
District continues to serve a small portion of the community bordering the Worcester line. Each
of these is discussed below.
Auburn Water District
The Auburn Water District is a private water district independent of Auburn’s town government.
A three-member elected Board of Water Commissioners manages the District’s affairs. The
district has a total full-time staff of ten people: two administrative support, two executives, and
six operational employees.
The District’s budget for the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year was $1,937,498. This is an enterprise system
where the District’s customers pay for all operating expenses and major capital expenditures. The
District does not utilize any State grants to stabilize its water rates. Billing is done on a quarterly
basis.
Facilities: The District has two water treatment facilities on-line and one that will soon be online. There is a treatment facility off of Southbridge Street Court and one off of Walsh Avenue.
Combined, both treatment plants have the capacity to treat up to one million gallons per day
(mgd) and both utilize green sand filtration systems that remove iron, manganese, and arsenic.
Both treatment facilities are approximately ten years old and are upgraded on a regular basis. The
District is about to bring on-line two new wells and a small treatment facility that will treat the
water for radon. Located off of West Street, this project will cost roughly $2.8 million and will be
completed sometime during 2005. The District also has three water storage tanks: two are off of
Prospect Street (one has a storage capacity of two million gallons while the other can store up to
one-half million gallons), and one tank off of Bryn Mawr Avenue that can store up to one million
gallons of water. In addition, the District maintains ten wells located within four well fields.
Equipment: The District has two service trucks, two pickup trucks, a backhoe and a dump truck.
All are new and in excellent condition except for the backhoe which is over ten years old and will
soon need to be replaced.
System Description: The Auburn Water District covers the entirety of Town with the exception of
the Elm Hill Water District service area located in north Auburn. The District recently acquired
the Woodland Park Water District that currently buys its water from the City of Worcester. The
41
Auburn Water District plans to integrate the Woodland Park service area into its system
eventually, thus doing away with the costly purchase of water from the City of Worcester.
All of the District’s ten wells are shallow sand and gravel wells. There are two wells (#4 & #5) in
close proximity to the Walsh Avenue treatment facility, and three wells (#6, #9 & #10) located in
close proximity to the Southbridge Street Court treatment facility. There is a wellfield containing
three wells (#1, #2 & #3) located near the intersection of Church Street and Southbridge Street,
and another wellfield containing two wells (#7 & #8) located off of Pine Valley Drive just before
the railroad tracks. Together, these wells have the capacity to deliver between 2.3 and 2.6 mgd,
with 2.6 mgd being the system’s ultimate safe yield. However, the average daily water
withdrawal currently permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is 1.6 mgd.
The water system uses an average of 1.3 mgd, although the summer months have a higher
average of 1.8 mgd. With the system being permitted for an average of 1.6 mgd and an average
use of 1.3 mgd, the District’s water system is quite close to running at full capacity and it is quite
likely that new water supply sources will need to be developed during the next decade. Knowing
this, the District continues to search for new water supply sources as an ongoing endeavor. While
the District has the authority to impose water use restrictions during the summer months, it has
not done so in four years. The District’s water system currently does not have any significant
water quality issues other than the particular treatment needs of individual wells cited above. The
water delivery pipes can be as old as 50 years and are replaced as they break. The District does
not have a formal pipe replacement program but it does utilize leak detection surveys on a regular
basis.
The Auburn Water District currently serves 4,348 customers:
-- 2,651
Residential customers (using 290 million gallons per year)
--
695
Commercial customers (using 76 million gallons per year)
--
564
Industrial customers (using 62 million gallons per year)
--
390
Institutional customers (using 43 million gallons per year)
--
48
Agricultural customers (using five million gallons per year)
In terms of a per capita water use figure, the Auburn Water District estimates that each customer
uses approximately 73.1 gallons of water per day. The water system is almost 100% fully metered
and the District currently estimates that only 8.6% of the system’s water is unaccounted for. The
District has an agreement with the City of Worcester for an emergency water supply. While the
District does not have a Water Conservation Plan consistent with the Water Conservation
Standards of the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, it does provide water conservation
public education pamphlets to its customers on a regular basis. The last comprehensive water
system study for the District was completed in 1991 by the engineering firm of Dufresne & Henry
Inc. The District does not have a formal water system expansion plan; rather, landowners and
developers pay for the extension of the system’s water pipes.
Map 5 shows the location of the water mains, treatment plants, storage facilities and land
protected within Zones I & II.
42
Map 5
Water System Map
43
Upcoming Capital Needs: The most significant upcoming capital expenditure for the District will
be integrating the Woodland Park water system into its own water distribution system. Other than
that, the District will continue spending capital improvement money on identifying and
developing new water supply sources, replacing old and leaky pipes, and replacing some of the
smaller water mains.
Elm Hill Water District
The Elm Hill Water District is a private water district independent of Auburn town government.
A four-member Board of Water Commissioners manages the District’s affairs. The district has
only one full-time employee who serves as Superintendent.
Facilities: The District buys all of its water from the City of Worcester and thus does not have
any treatment facilities or wells.
Equipment: The District has one service truck.
System Description: The Elm Hill Water District covers a small service area located in northeast
Auburn. The District serves 770 residential customers and a handful of businesses. All told, the
District uses 53,000,000 gallons of water per year, or 145,205 gallons per day. The water delivery
pipes can be as old as 50-60 years and are replaced as they break. The District does not have a
formal pipe replacement program but it does utilize leak detection surveys on a regular basis.
The water system is 100% fully metered. The District estimates that its unaccounted-for water
loss ranges from 2-5% of the system’s total water usage.
Upcoming Capital Needs: The most significant upcoming capital expenditure for the District will
be the purchase of 100 to 150 radio-read meters. The purchase of these meters is currently
estimated at roughly $22,000.
Sewer Department
Existing Conditions
The Sewer Department is governed by a three-member Board of Sewer Commissioners. Staff
consists of a Superintendent, an Operations Foreman, two Sewer Mechanics, a Clerk, and a part
time employee for week-ends and holidays. The Department operates on an Enterprise accounting
system, i.e. users are charged for their sewage use and the resulting revenues cover all of the
expenses of running the system. The sewage flow is calculated at 100% of the metered water use.
This does not account for domestic use or outside watering that does not result in flow to sewer
pipes. Customers on wells are billed at the Title 5 sewage generation rates, for example, 110
gallons per day per bedroom. This results in very high usage figures compared to what is actually
generated by most households. (Title 5 is intended to meet high demand rates for use of septic
systems.) Well users can request meters to more accurately determine actual water demand.
Sewer billing is somewhat antiquated and needs to be improved. Sewer bills are mailed out once
each year in November or December. The bills are printed and mailed by a company in
Worcester. Billing occurs one year in arrears, that is, the current bill is for the previous year’s use.
This helps to minimize the cost of using an outside firm (once per year rather than quarterly) but
creates some confusion with customers. More frequent billing provides more timely information
to the user and can lead to water conservation. In addition, since costs always seem to increase, it
is hard to run the system based on the previous year’s income. The Superintendent would like to
44
obtain new software to handle the billing in-house. The Department would also like to move to a
more accurate metering system but the costs would be considerable.
The sewer system consists of approximately 75 miles of sewer lines and 11 sewer pumping
stations. The Sewer Department maintains sewers in about 85% of the Town’s roads. (Source:
2004 Annual Report) Areas not served are primarily those in the rural areas of Auburn where
hilly terrain would increase the cost of construction and the need for costly sewer pump stations
to operate force mains. The number and type of connections are listed in Table 13 below:
Table 13
Sewer Connections, 2004
Sector
Number
Residential
6,020
Residential/Commercial
Commercial
32
226
Industrial
29
Worcester Connections
50
Source: 2004 Annual Report
The Town’s sewage flow is treated at the Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District
(UBWPAD) treatment plant on the Worcester/Millbury line. Auburn and Worcester were the two
founding members of the District. The District was created to serve 11 communities with the
primary goal of protecting the water quality of the Wachusett Reservoir and Blackstone River.
The Superintendent is the Town’s representative on the District’s Board of Directors. The sewage
treatment plant was constructed with excess capacity to meet the future needs of the entire
district. The plant was designed for an average daily flow of 56 mgd; in 2004, the plant treated an
average of about 37.4 mgd, and Auburn’s contribution was approximately 2.16 mgd.
In 1999 the EPA and DEP revised the plant’s discharge permit and mandated much stricter
pollutant limits in an effort to help clean up the Blackstone River. The situation is somewhat
unusual in that the UBWPAD plant is at the upper reaches of the River where flows are relatively
low compared to the volume treated at the plant. During summer months, the plant’s discharge is
the principal contributor to the River’s flow. Since the treated outfall makes up a significant
portion of the River, the stricter discharge limits set by state and federal regulators will require
expensive equipment upgrades to meet the new standards. The District appealed this permit to the
EPA and DEP that same year. However, a revised permit was issued in September 2001 that sets
more stringent effluent limits for nitrogen and phosphorus than the plant was originally designed
to treat. The plant must comply with the permit limits by August of 2009. Upon completion, the
plant will meet advanced treatment standards.
The project will be undertaken in 4 phases, with the mandated work expected to be completed in
2009. Construction is currently underway. The total cost of the upgrades is projected to be $130
million. This work will be funded by low interest loans (2%) through the Massachusetts Water
Pollution Abatement Trust over a 20-year period. Operating costs of the upgraded facility are
expected to be similar to the current costs; however, payback of the notes will increase the
operating budget considerably. As a result, costs to the individual member towns could increase
45
three-fold between 2002 and 2014. Individual users will be expected to pay for the upgrades
through higher rates.
The Town has already begun to feel the effects of the construction costs. Presented below is a
concise summary of costs of running the Sewer Department. While operations and administration
have remained fairly stable, the charges to Auburn for disposal at the treatment plant in FY ‘05
more than doubled over the previous year. These costs will continue to rise as the District
borrows the sums necessary to pay for the construction costs. On the positive side, the plant has,
and will continue to have, adequate capacity to meet the needs of the entire District, and the water
quality of the Blackstone River should continue to improve to meet fishable/swimmable
standards.
Table 14
Sewer Department Budget
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
FY 04
Approp.
FY 05
Request
Administration
193,656
196,622
206,004
220,091
223,740
UBWPAD
140,932
145,046
161,359
151,172
347,349
Operations
236,388
161,417
172,275
172,300
177,020
Total
570,976
503,086
539,638
543,563
748,109
Auburn has made improvements to its pumping stations in recent years. The Department spent
about $1.2 million to replace various components in five stations. There are 11 stations in all.
According to the Superintendent, there are no capacity issues regarding inadequate mains or
pumping stations. However, he estimates the cost of upgrading the Auburn/Oxford Station at
about $260,000, a cost which is partially attributable to the proposed housing development on the
Oxford/Auburn line. Staffing is an issue for the Department. Regulations require that each pump
station be checked daily. As new pumping stations and sewer mains are added, it becomes
difficult to meet the requirements with existing staff.
A second major issue facing the Department is the increasing Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) into the
system. During heavy spring rains, flow increases to over 6 mgd for short periods of time. The
Superintendent expects there could be a major expense facing the Town in this area. Apparently,
most of the mains in the system were built around the same time when federal grants were readily
available and the Town was experiencing rapid growth. The installed pipes were Asbestos
Concrete and are particularly susceptible to I/I. PVC pipes did not come into common use until
the 1980’s after most of the sewer system was constructed. These older mains will all eventually
have to be replaced to solve the I/I problem. The Department has already begun to do the
inspections needed to identify the biggest offenders.
46
Map 6
Sewer System Map
47
The cost to install sewer mains in the 1960’s and ‘70’s when the Town’s system was initially
constructed was about $11.50 per linear foot (lf) of frontage. The Superintendent estimates
today’s cost to be about $63 per lf. While residents originally paid 50% of the cost, homeowners
today will have to pick up about 95% of the cost as a sewer betterment.
The Department does not have a Facilities Master Plan to extend the sewer system into
unsewered areas. Landowners may request such extensions and the Department will generally
comply provided all costs are borne by the applicant and the additions meet current engineering
standards. As noted above, there are no significant capacity issues limiting growth in the system.
As an Enterprise fund, however, the users assume the cost of operating and also expanding the
system. With the absence of federal grants, major expansions not requested by landowners would
most likely occur with low interest loans from the State Revolving Fund. Users would pay off the
loans through increased rates. With rates sure to rise due to the treatment plant re-construction,
extending new sewers will place added costs onto the ratepayers.
Since capacity at the treatment plant is virtually unlimited, the entire Town could be sewered, but
realistically, high costs will limit future expansion. The Department extended the system along
Route 20 in recent years to serve Westec Industrial Park and other industrial users. In considering
the long-range growth of the Town, it is important to recognize that extending sewers to
undeveloped areas can have beneficial environmental effects by allowing for the replacement of
failed septic systems, a significant source of ground and surface water contamination. On the
other hand, the presence of sewers can allow for development of land that previously was
unsuitable due to poor soil conditions on property that could not pass Title 5 standards. The
excess capacity of the sewer system should be viewed as a valuable resource that can the benefit
the community. A willingness to extend sewers can help to promote economic development as
industrial and office buildings generally have higher sewage generation rates than residential
uses. In addition, high-density residential development can be targeted to appropriate areas of the
Town, but only if sewers are present to handle wastewater generation.
Auburn Senior Center
Existing Conditions
The Senior Center is located at 4 Goddard Drive. The staff consists of a Director, Assistant
Director, a Senior Aide, Office Assistant and two van drivers. Numerous volunteers assist the
staff in delivering services to the Town’s Senior Citizens. The Council on Aging, a nine-member
board appointed by the Selectmen oversees operations. The staff coordinates the daily activities
of the Center, including exercise and yoga programs, a nutritious lunch for a modest donation,
support groups, computer classes, health awareness programs, medical clinics, access to financial
resources that provide assistance to seniors, and general socializing with peers by simply playing
cards, games, or pool. About 90 volunteers provide about 1200 hours of service per year, a
valuable contribution that helps to keep the Center’s budget at a modest level. A number of other
civic functions take place at the Center, including the Auburn Historical Society, Recreational
Committee meetings, and Red Cross blood drives. Through Auburn’s Senior Citizen Tax WorkOff Program older residents may work for various municipal departments to reduce their real
estate tax bill.
The Center has been nearly level funded for the past three years, although small increases have
been provided for immediate staff. In 2004, the Worcester Regional Transit Authority provided
$32,216 to cover the cost of van service for the elderly and disabled in Auburn. State formula
grants pay for the Outreach Co-Coordinator and a Custodian. Para-transit services to and from the
48
Center are provided for eligible seniors who have mobility difficulties. The Center’s minivan
provides transportation for medical appointments, shopping trips, and other Center-sponsored
trips. Table 15 provides a summary of the last five years for Auburn’s WRTA funded services.
Table 15
WRTA Funded Para-Transit Services
Year
Passenger
Trips
Revenue
Gross
Cost
Gross
Cost/Trip
2000
7,647
8,455
38,024
4.97
2001
6,246
6,855
35,172
5.63
2002
6,992
7,609
33,765
4.83
2003
6,112
7,048
37,960
6.21
2004
5,138
6,210
38,426
7.48
Source: CMRPC
Demand for services continues to increase as the Town’s senior population increases. Census
figures that there are over 3,600 persons over age. The Director estimates that about 1,000 seniors
regularly attend programs offered at the Center, and the numbers continue to increase. The
average attendance is 92 seniors per day.
The building housing the Center is in good condition, although the roof is starting to show signs
of wear and may need to be replaced. General building maintenance concerns are covered in the
Town’s budget, but out-of-the ordinary emergency expenses can pose difficulty for making
timely repairs. The Parks and Highway Department assume responsibility for grounds
maintenance and winter plowing. As programs and numbers of participants continue to increase,
space constraints become more apparent. The Council is considering enclosing the garage to
create a craft room and garage workshop. The Friends of the Auburn Senior Center provide
limited financial assistance and support for maintenance and program needs.
Auburn Police Department
Existing Conditions
The Chief of Police commands the Auburn Police Department, with a complement of 30 sworn
officers, including a lieutenant, 6 sergeants and 23 patrol officers. In addition, 11 civilian
employees work in administration, communications and maintenance. The main function of the
Auburn Police Department is to protect and serve the residents and visitors to the Town of
Auburn. The Department offers a School Liaison program, where an officer is assigned to address
potential problems before they become serious. The assigned officer works closely with school
administrators to let a school know of any domestic situations that may affect a student’s
performance. The Department also offers “RUOK”, a program that provides telephone
reassurance calls to elderly residents who live alone to see that they are not ill or incapacitated. In
addition, two volunteer programs are provided, including a hotline to report crime, and the
49
Citizen Police Academy, a semi-annual information session. The Police Department, unlike the
Fire Department, is not a first-responder to accidents on the Massachusetts Turnpike, but the
Department will respond to requests for assistance from the Massachusetts State Police.
The
Auburn
Police
Department
Headquarters was built in 2000, with funds
from the sale of the old Station and a
community policing grant. While it was
adequate for the department’s needs at the
time, no accommodation was made for
expansion. Parking is inadequate just 5
years later, for example, and while showers
and locker rooms are suitable for current
personnel, there is no room for new
officers, nor is there an exercise room or
equipment.
The
jail
area
and
communications area are appropriate.
The Department has 15 vehicles, 12
marked patrol cars and 3 unmarked cars, but only two vehicles are replaced each year when four
should be replaced due to their excessive use. The Chief indicated that specialized vehicles are
not available, but that the Department could make good use of a surveillance van, two all-terrain
vehicles and a van to transport prisoners, none of which it has at this time.
The most pressing issue facing the department is a lack of personnel. The Police Chief believes
that Auburn does not have adequate personnel resources to meet existing demand, and even
greater resources will be needed in the future. The FBI recommends 2.7 police officers per 1,000
persons, which would set a standard of 43 police officers for the approximately 16,000 residents
of Auburn. However, the Chief believes that the true complement for Auburn should be higher
given its position as a retail and employment center and the accompanying demands this places
on his staff, including store crime, high accident rates from turning movements, and large number
of hotel units.
Auburn is minimally staffed during any given shift with only 1 sergeant and 3 patrol officers, but
should more properly have a lieutenant and 5 patrol officers per shift. The Department has one
fully trained Accident Reconstruction expert, an officer who is called to all motor vehicle crashes
involving serious injury or death. A K-9 officer is constantly on call to respond to serious crimes,
to search for narcotics, or to assist in searches for lost persons. In addition, several officers are
members of the Central Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council Special Weapons and Tactics
Teams (SWAT). These officers are trained in a variety of specialties from entry teams to crisis
negotiators to team coordinators and team leader positions.
Narcotics has become an increasingly severe problem in Auburn. While Auburn should have five
Criminal Investigation Specialists, it has only three; furthermore, Auburn should have two
narcotics officers, but it has none. As a result, the Department does not have the ability to fully
investigate narcotics leads. The presence of numerous hotels in Auburn and ready access to the
interstate system has an effect on narcotics trafficking in town.
50
Capital equipment needs are also numerous. New computer equipment will be made available,
and while the Department has been able to “stay even” with its technological needs, it never has
been able to develop a technological sophistication. Communications equipment will need to be
upgraded once the regional law enforcement Homeland Security Interoperability Plan is
implemented to resolve a long-standing inability of area police departments to communicate with
each other during times of need. As noted above, the vehicle replacement program should be
increased to four vehicles per year above the current two per year. The Department’s patrol
vehicles are in constant use given the heavy traffic volumes in town and they undergo heavy wear
and tear. A surveillance vehicle would also aid the Department in its detective and narcotics
investigations.
Lastly, because of the short staffing situation, the Department has its hands full keeping up with
record keeping and reporting requirements. This prevents the Department from fully taking
advantage of the analytical capabilities of today’s software. In addition, many departments in
other communities use their community’s GIS data to help in tracking and monitoring crime
patterns, but Auburn’s lack of such a system does not make this possible. In addition, the
Department does not have the time to pursue grant opportunities for equipment and policing
programs that could solve some of the Department’s needs.
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
1. Through its Capital Improvement Program, Auburn has done a good job maintaining existing
buildings and equipment. Major expenses are accounted for in the Town’s normal yearly
budget process. Many of these buildings have witnessed significant deterioration due to old
age and heavy use.
2. Auburn has not been as successful in replacing its municipal building stock. Many Town
buildings are approaching the end of their useful life and must either be replaced or enlarged
and extensively renovated.
3. Many municipal department heads reported a serious shortage of staff. In order to keep its
budget from increasing at a rapid rate, and since a large portion of Town government is
devoted to salaries, financial planners have reduced staff of many departments to minimal
levels. This has placed a severe strain on the ability of the departments to keep pace with the
expectations of townspeople for quality services.
4. Auburn is somewhat unique from other communities of comparable size in the extensive
commercial development that has taken place along its major commercial thoroughfares.
These facilities place many demands upon town departments, including police, fire, public
health, and building and code enforcement. While these land uses contribute a great deal to
the local tax base, it should be recognized that their presence does increase the costs of such
departments above what would be expected for a town of Auburn’s size.
5. The Town has not fully committed to making technological innovations to take full advantage
of the efficiencies that are possible through computerization. Many services now provided at
the counter could be provided through greater computerization. Better use of the Town
website could enable residents to keep informed with Town activities and allow for greater
interaction and participation.
6. The Town has not fully pursued grant opportunities that may be available to assist in
purchasing capital equipment and making building improvements. Exceptions include grants
obtained for the Route 12 Veterans Memorial Corridor and the Auburn Youth and Family
Services building. Many departments are too under-staffed to pursue grant opportunities. In
51
addition, if a local match is required, there may be a reluctance to prepare an application if
there is a strong possibility the Town would not fund its share.
7. Major capital facility needs include the following:
•
A Library expansion plan has determined that the existing Library should be replaced and
a new 25,000 square foot building constructed. The total cost of the project is estimated
at about $14 million, which could be partially offset by a $3.6 million grant from the
State Board of Library Commissioners.
•
Elementary School buildings are approaching the end of their useful life. Bryn Mawr,
Packachoag, Mary D. Stone, and Julia Bancroft Schools were identified in a recent school
building study as in need of a major overhaul. Fortunately, the School Department does
not foresee major enrollment increases in the short term. This means that existing schools
can either be extensively renovated with modest expansions to accommodate modern
teaching requirements, or individually replaced over a predictable period of time with
new buildings that will meet the long-term needs of the School Department.
•
The Auburn Fire Department’s West St. Station and School Administration offices share
the former Randall School. The Fire Department’s Central Station is too small to meet its
needs, but site constraints limit expansion possibilities. A new fire station will be needed
to house fire, ambulance, and emergency management equipment.
•
As the elder population increases and participation grows at the Senior Center, the
building is becoming more crowded. While not a serious issue at the present time, the
Council on Aging should begin to develop an expansion plan.
8. Road conditions are slowly deteriorating throughout Auburn. The single-person Engineering
Department is unable to keep up with the demands of providing detailed specifications for
street improvements with all of the other responsibilities of state and federal mandates. The
Engineering Department should have additional support staff to help the Town Engineer keep
pace with the many projects requiring his attention.
9. The Storm Water Management Plan and regulations will also require the Town to make
improvements to its storm water infrastructure. The Town’s consultant will identify these
capital projects and provide with an implementation schedule for improvements. The Town
will need to incorporate these needs into its street repair program. This storm water program
will also increase the day-to-day inspection and enforcement duties of the Town staff to
insure that both constructed and current development projects properly control the discharge
of contaminants carried off by storm water runoff.
10. Deferred maintenance on many of the dams in Auburn has resulted in the potential for serious
breaches that could affect downstream property. Several dams in Auburn have either been
recently improved or are on schedule for repairs. This process should continue until all dams
in Auburn can pass safety inspections.
11. Auburn does not have an Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Transition Plan. Such a plan is
needed to identify conditions in Town-owned buildings and facilities that limit accessibility
by people with disabilities. The Town has an obligation to insure that all citizens can fully
participate in the Town’s services, programs, and activities. ADA requires that buildings,
parks and other facilities that offer services to the public be readily accessible to and usable
by persons with disabilities. When services are provided on a web site, those services, too,
must be made accessible. Auburn also does not have a Disability Commission that is charged
with insuring that the Town complies with its obligations under the law and assisting those
with disabilities to insure that their needs are recognized and accommodated.
52
12. New growth in Auburn is placing a strain on the ability of the Auburn Water District to meet
the demand for water from its existing sources. The District is pursuing plans to develop two
new wells off West Street, which will add approximately 690,000 gpd of drinking water to
the system. When these wells come on-line, the District will be able to satisfy the demand for
water to accommodate a great deal of additional development. Given the District’s State
permitted withdrawal of 1.6 mgd, the new wells will increase the capacity of the District by
43%.
13. The Sewer System does not have physical constraints on its ability to accommodate
additional development. The cost of extending mains and adding new pumping stations to
serve rural parts of Town, however, will be considerable. The Department should develop a
new in-house billing package to improve its rate collection process and make it more
equitable for customers. The Department is also beginning to identify serious Infiltration and
Inflow locations that add non-sanitary wastewater to sewer mains, and will take corrective
measures to replace deficient mains to eliminate this problem.
14. Under state and federal mandates, the Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District
sewage treatment plant is undergoing a very expensive upgrade. This will enable the
discharge to meet advanced treatment standards and will help to greatly improve the water
quality of the Blackstone River. However, these costs will be passed on to users and will
cause a significant jump in sewer fees for Town residents.
15. The Police Department maintains a minimum staffing level, but given the extensive amount
of commercial development and associated traffic congestion and crash rate, the manpower of
the Department should be increased to account for the heavy workload.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES GOALS
1. Devote sufficient resources to adequately maintain the Town’s inventory of municipal
buildings to prolong their useful life.
2. Develop a building replacement program to ensure that new municipal buildings are
constructed to replace facilities that can no longer meet the needs of the Town.
3. Provide adequate resources for technological improvements to insure Town employees can
perform their duties as efficiently as possible, and provide Town residents greater access to a
wide variety of timely information and electronic services.
4. Encourage greater volunteerism among local citizens to become involved in “community
building” projects and actively promote opportunities to serve on municipal boards and
commissions.
5. Insure municipal departments have the staff and capital equipment needed to provide high
quality services.
53
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Undertake a Sewer System Master Plan to: 1) identify costs and feasibility of extending
sewers to serve rural areas and to accommodate areas with high rates of septic systems
failures; 2) undertake Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) analysis and prevention; and 3) determine
the costs of replacing aging sewer mains in existing neighborhoods.
2. Prepare an ADA Transition Plan to identify barriers to use of Town facilities by those with
disabilities and develop a program and schedule to systematically eliminate such barriers. The
Board of Selectmen may wish to establish a Disabilities Commission to identify the needs of
the Town’s disabled population and promote policies, programs and services to remove
barriers that prevent disabled individuals from fully participating in Town affairs.
3. Establish a municipal Geographic Information System (GIS) to enable the Planning,
Engineering, Assessing, Sewer, Recreation, and Highway Departments to have access to
accurate geo-spatial data. Such information will improve the decision-making capability of
numerous boards and commissions and help to minimize the impact of development on
surrounding land uses and natural resources. A GIS would be particularly effective in helping
to implement the Town’s new storm water management program
4. Greater resources should be devoted to Information Technology to insure municipal
departments are able to benefit from advanced technological innovations to perform their
duties as efficiently as possible. Residents should also be provided opportunities via the
Internet to perform on-line transactions and to keep abreast of Town activities, such as
budgeting decisions, development proposals, and events and programs offered by Town
boards and departments. The Board of Selectmen may wish to establish an advisory
committee to study and recommend ways Town services can be provided via computer
technology. In addition, the Committee could explore other possibilities for fostering greater
participation in community affairs and for promoting economic development opportunities.
The young adults of today are much more fluent in computer technology than the “babyboom” generation and their energy could be harnessed via new and creative internet-based
systems.
5. Auburn should create a position of a Land Use Enforcement Officer to help with site
inspections of new development to insure the decisions and conditions of municipal boards
and commissions are fully complied with. This position would also help the Town staff to
implement the recommendations of the storm water management plan and prevent and
respond to violations of the Town’s storm water management and erosion control bylaw
(proposed).
6. The Town’s capital improvement programming is working to prioritize purchase of capital
equipment and building renovations. However, the level of support should be increased to
prevent deferral of necessary building improvements and postponement of needed equipment.
7. Auburn should hire a part-time grant writer to insure the Town takes full advantage of state
and federal funding sources that can provide a valuable contribution to work that the Town
would otherwise defer and/or have to fund completely out of its local funds.
8. The Town has numerous building related needs, including elementary schools, fire stations,
and Library expansion. The Town Administrator and Town Accountant should develop a
long-range financial plan to identify the priorities, costs and funding streams for replacing its
aging building inventory.
9. As noted in the Transportation chapter, Auburn should significantly increase its annual
allocation for road repairs to help keep pace with road deterioration. The Engineering
54
Department will need additional resources to prepare the road design plans and conduct
inspections for an increased level of activity. This could be provided either as an assistant to
help eliminate the backlog of engineering work facing the Department, or as an alternative,
the Town could contract for additional engineering services on a case-by-case basis. State
transportation programs, for example, often require a community to prepare design plans or
easement takings prior to the advertisement of a construction project. Enhancing the Town’s
ability to quickly respond would expedite implementation of such improvements.
10. Old dams should be monitored for signs of distress and funds sought for improvements
before failure is imminent.
11. The School Department should undertake a comprehensive student enrollment projection
study to determine if future growth will require the need for a new elementary school. An
assessment of whether a new school will be needed in the future can inform decisions
regarding repair and expansion of existing school buildings, with the goal of maintaining an
average class size that prevents overcrowding and optimizes student learning.
12. In order to promote greater participation on Town boards and committees, volunteers should
be actively recruited to experience the satisfaction of helping to make Auburn a better
community. While experienced board members often pass on hard-won experience to new
members, new participants can bring in fresh ideas and a high energy level to accomplish
civic betterment projects. Town leaders should seek to fashion opportunities, particularly for
new residents, to become involved in Town affairs through short-term, goal-oriented projects.
Volunteers exhibiting leadership skills and willingness to make a commitment of time should
be encouraged to volunteer for permanent Town boards and committees.
55
CHAPTER 4:
HOUSING
HOUSING ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
Population Trends
The 2000 Census counted 15,901 residents in Auburn, an increase of 896 persons from the 1990
Census count of 15,005 residents. With a total landmass that consists of 15.4 square miles,
Auburn has a population density of roughly 1,035.3 people per square mile. Table 16 presents
Auburn’s growth in population over the years, as well as the Town’s projected population for the
year 2020.
Table 16
Auburn Population Growth
Year
# of
People
Numerical
Change
1920
3,891
---
---
1930
6,147
2,256
58.0%
1940
6,629
482
7.8%
1950
8,840
2,211
33.4%
1960
14,047
5,207
58.9%
1970
15,347
1,300
9.3%
1980
14,845
-502
-3.3%
1990
15,005
160
1.1%
2000
15,901
896
6.0%
2010
Projection*
16,500
599
3.8%
2020
Projection*
17,200
700
4.2%
% Change
Sources: US Census. *Projections provided by CMRPC.
Table 1 shows that Auburn experienced substantial growth over two decades, from 1940 to 1959,
when the population grew at a rate of 33.4% and 58.9%. Since then, growth has stabilized and
according to the Central Mass. Regional Planning Commission’s population forecast, Auburn’s
population rate will see a moderate population increase (3.8%) during this decade and 4.2%
growth between 2010 and 2020.
Table 17 indicates that neighboring communities have all experienced modest growth, while
Charlton experienced substantial growth. The 2020 population projections suggest that Auburn
will have growth comparable to neighboring communities, with the exception of Charlton, which
is anticipated will continue to grow at a rapid pace. Regional growth is primarily due to persons
migrating from the eastern part of the state, where housing costs are significantly higher, in
search of more affordable housing.
Housing
56
Table 17
Population Growth and Percent Change in Neighboring Communities
Year
Auburn
Charlton
Holden
Leicester
Millbury
1980
14,845
6,719
1990
15,005
(1.1%)
2000
Oxford
13,336
9,446
11,808
11,680
9,576
(42%)
14,628
(9.7%)
10,191
(7.9%)
12,228
(3.6%)
12,588
(7.8%)
15,901
(6%)
11,263
(17.6%)
15,621
(6.8%)
10,471
(2.7%)
12,784
(4.5%)
13,352
(6.1%)
2010
16,500
(3.8%)
14,300
(27.0%)
17,500
(12.0%)
11,000
(5.1%)
13,700
(7.2%)
13,900
(4.1%)
2020
17,200
(4.2%)
16,300
(14.0%)
18,700
(6.9%)
11,300
(2.7%)
14,300
(4.4%)
14,500
(4.3%)
Sources: US Census. Projections provided by CMRPC.
Housing Unit Growth
Table 18 shows how the housing stock has grown over the last twenty (20) years and allows for a
comparison against the growth in population. Tables 18 and 19 refer to year-round occupied
housing units only.
Table 18
Housing Unit Growth in Auburn
Year
# of Occupied
Housing Units
Numerical
Change
% Change
1980
5,165
----
------
1990
5,714
549
10.6%
2000
6,346
632
11.0%
Source: US Census
Table 19
Housing Unit Growth – Neighboring Communities
Year
Auburn
1980
5,165
1990
2000
Charlton
Holden
Leicester
Millbury
Oxford
2,107
4,536
2,961
3,974
3,813
5,714
(10.6%)
3,147
(49.3%)
5,281
(16.4%)
3,458
(16.8%)
4,584
(15.3%)
4,492
(17.8%)
6,346
(11%)
3,788
(20.4%)
5,715
(8%)
3,683
(6.5%)
4,927
(7%)
5,058
(12.6%)
Source: US Census
Housing
57
Taken together, Tables 17 - 19 indicate that the housing stock of Auburn and near-by
communities is growing at a faster rate than their populations. Between 1980 and 1990, the region
experienced significant growth, which continued into 2000 for Charlton. It is anticipated that
housing unit growth will continue over the next decade. In fact, a total of 74 building permits
were issued in Auburn in 2004 (See Table 20), verifying that the Town is continuing to grow at a
moderate pace along with other towns in the region. During the same year, 95 building permits
were issued in Charlton, 42 in Holden, 27 in Leicester, 74 in Millbury, and 30 in Oxford.
Table 20
Annual Number of Units Authorized
by Building Permits: 1998-2004
Year
1998
Auburn
Charlton
Holden
Leicester
Millbury
Oxford
55
92
68
49
33
55
1999
65
79
69
41
35
51
2000
49
85
84
44
73
55
2001
52
88
54
41
40
36
2002
62
110
120
37
64
29
2003
58
81
113
55
77
36
2004
74
95
42
27
74
30
Source: MISER
A significant portion of housing construction in Auburn is not in subdivisions, but on individual
house lots along existing public roads. For example, in 2002 the Planning Board approved
nineteen (19) individual house lots. Individual house lots require only the submittal of an
“Approval Not Required” (ANR) plan to the Planning Board. The plan must be endorsed as long
as the lot(s) shown on the plan can be accessed adequately and have the required frontage on a
public way, a way shown on a subdivision plan previously approved, or on a private way that has
adequate construction to provide for vehicular access.
According to the Auburn Build-Out Analysis prepared by CMRPC, in 2000 there were 3,815
developable acres remaining in Auburn at that time. Given existing zoning bylaw minimum lot
size requirements and environmental constraints, vacant residentially zoned land could yield
2,317 new residential lots. According to this analysis, if all of these lots were developed, it would
mean 6,084 additional residents in town, of whom 1,554 would be students. Table 21 provides a
summary of residential build-out related data. Based on the population projections contained in
Table 16, there does not appear to be a danger of exhausting the supply of developable land over
the next decade and beyond.
Housing
58
Table 21
Auburn Residential Build-Out Statistics
Developable Acres
3,815
Residential Lots
2,053
New Residents
5,745
New Students
917
Source: CMRPC
Notes:
1. The number of “Residents” at build-out is based on the persons per
household figure derived from the 2000 US Census, 2.48
2. The number of “School-Age Children” at build-out is based on public
school enrollment and occupied households in 2000.
Average Household Size:
As previously noted, Auburn’s housing stock has and continues to grow at a faster rate than its
population. This is not surprising when one considers the national trend toward smaller household
sizes. Couples are having fewer children today and many households are the single parent variety.
Auburn’s US Census data confirms this trend. In 1980, the typical Auburn household contained
2.87 people. By 1990, the persons per household figure had declined to 2.63 and by 2000, to 2.48
persons per household.
Another factor contributing to smaller household sizes is “the graying of America”, that is, our
nation’s elderly population is expanding. The Census data clearly demonstrates that this national
trend is taking place in Auburn. In 1970, the median age of Auburn’s population was 30.4 years
of age and, in 1980 it edged up to 33.9 years of age. By 1990, the median age had increased to
37.6 years of age, and the recent year 2000 Census show the median age now stands at 40.9 years
of age.
Table 22 displays change in age of the Town’s population from 1990 to 2000. The number of
very young children (under 5 years) declined by 5.9% during the decade, while children between
5 and 19 years of age showed an increase of 298 persons or 10.8%. With a smaller number of
children under 5, it is likely that the Town’s school population will decline, unless there is surge
in new housing growth, or a turnover in the existing housing stock to families with school-aged
children.
The data also reveals that a large population increase occurred among those aged 35-54 (888
additional persons or a 21.6% increase). This indicates that buyers of homes must wait to enter
their high wage-earning years before being able to afford a home. Conversely, one may also infer
that it has become more difficult for young adults (20-34 years) to afford to live in Auburn since
that age group declined by 22.6%. One reason may be the small number of rental units in Auburn,
the typical housing choice of young adults while saving for a home purchase.
Older citizens (55 and over) witnessed population changes. Residents between the ages of 55-64
increased slightly by 2.6% while those 65-74 decreased by 8.4%. This latter segment represents
Depression era births, when the birth rate was low due to severe economic factors. As these
Housing
59
residents move into their more elder years, there is unlikely to be a significant increase in the 75
and over population. However, during the last decade, those 75 and over experienced the highest
rate of growth out of any other age category; 575 persons, for a sharp increase of 62.4%. This
may be partly explained by the development of elderly housing (The Village at Eddy Pond) and
advances in health care, as residents are now living longer lives.
As baby-boomers begin to enter their retirement years in the latter part of this decade, and with
medical advances extending our life spans, it is clear that more elderly will be looking for
different housing options as they opt to leave their single family homes in Auburn. Zoning
amendments will need to be adopted in order to allow alternative living arrangements that can
cater to the diverse needs of the elderly population.
Table 22
Population by Age Group
Year
Under 5
5 – 19
20 – 34
35 – 54
55 – 64
65 – 74
75 +
1990
900
2,753
3,216
4,108
1,594
1,513
921
2000
847
3,051
2,490
4,996
1,635
1,386
1,496
Change
(53)
298
(726)
888
41
(127)
575
-5.9%
10.8%
-22.6%
21.6%
2.6%
-8.4%
62.4%
% Change
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census
Housing Unit Inventory
Tables 8, 9, and 10 include all housing units in Auburn, including vacant houses and seasonal
houses. Table 23 indicates that 77.7% of Auburn’s housing stock consists of single-family homes
and 16.8% is multi-family. Auburn also maintains a large stock of mobile homes (361 units), a
truly affordable option for lower income families. With proper controls, mobile home parks can
provide decent low cost housing for workers filling service jobs at the lower end of the pay scale.
Table 24 indicates that Leicester, Millbury, and Oxford had a higher percentage of multi-family
units than Auburn and other neighboring communities. Considering that the majority of multifamily units are rental properties, the data suggest that Auburn has an average amount of such
units in comparison to similar communities.
Table 23
Units in Structure - Year 2000
Type of Unit
Number of
Units
One Unit
Percentage
of Total
5,113
77.7%
Two Units
319
4.8%
Three or Four Units
290
4.4%
Five or More Units
496
7.6%
Mobile Homes
361
5.5%
3,910
100%
TOTAL
Source: 2000 US Census
Housing
60
Table 24
Type of Housing Units in Neighboring Communities: 2000
Town
One Unit
2 Units
3-4 Units
5+ Units
Mobile
Homes
Auburn
5,113 (77.7%)
319
290
496
361
Charlton
3,337 (83.3%)
188
286
167
30
Holden
5,185 (89.0%)
192
219
228
3
Leicester
2,901 (75.8%)
259
223
436
7
Millbury
3,740 (73.3%)
511
485
373
0
Oxford
3,802 (72.7%)
479
395
524
28
Age of Housing Stock
Table 25 illustrates that most of Auburn’s housing stock is of relatively new home construction;
23.2% or 1,526 units were built prior to World War II. Table 26 helps to illustrate that this is
somewhat average when compared to similar communities within the region but well below the
state average of 34.5%. The large number of units built in the post-war era account for the small
percentage of pre-war units. A newer housing stock is much more likely to be in better structural
condition. However, even though Auburn has a relatively low percentage of pre-1940 units, many
of those residential dwellings probably would not meet the State’s current building code. As these
units turn over, new owners are likely to make significant investment in repairs to modernize
these homes and improve energy efficiency.
Table 25
Age of Auburn Housing Stock
Year
Structure Built
Number of
Units
% of Housing
Stock
1990-2000
742
11.3%
1980-1989
829
12.6%
1970-1979
746
11.3%
1960-1969
763
11.6%
1940-1959
1,973
30.0%
1939 or earlier
1,526
23.2%
TOTAL
6,579
100%
Sources: US Census
Housing
61
Table 26
Age of Housing Stock (Pre 1940)
in Neighboring Communities: 2000
Town
Number of Pre1940 Units
Auburn
% of
Housing Stock
1,526
23.2%
Charlton
564
14.1%
Leicester
962
25.1%
Millbury
1,606
31.4%
Oxford
1,145
21.9%
905,698
34.5%
Massachusetts
Housing Occupancy
Table 27 indicates that Auburn is predominantly an owner-occupied housing community with
over 82% of the units so occupied. In 1990, there were a total of 4,752 owner occupied units and
that figure increased to 5,219 in the year 2000. During the same time span, rental units increased
from 962 units to 1,127. Using Census figures, 632 units were added during the decade, 467
owner and 165 renter. In terms of vacancy rates, the 1990 Census indicated a 1.45% owner
vacancy rate and a 4.68% rental vacancy rate. The 2000 Census reported an owner vacancy rate
of .6% indicating a very strong homeownership market. However, the rental vacancy rate
increased to 8.0%, indicating a softer demand for rental housing at that time.
Table 27
Type of Occupancy (Owner/Renter - 2000)
Type of Occupancy
Number of Units
Percent
Owner Occupied Housing
5,219
82.2%
Renter Occupied Housing
1,127
17.8%
Generally, more rural communities tend to have substantially fewer rental units than urbanized
areas. Table 28 indicates that Auburn has a moderate percentage of rental units in comparison to
neighboring communities, less than Millbury, Oxford, and Leicester but more than Charlton and
Holden.
Housing
62
Table 28
Type of Occupancy in Neighboring Communities (Owner/Renter - 2000)
Type of Unit Auburn
Charlton
Holden
Leicester Millbury
Oxford
Owner
5,219
82.2%
3,143
83%
5,053
88.4%
2,811
76%
3,515
71.3%
3,801
75%
Renter
1,127
17.8%
645
17%
662
11.6%
872
24%
1,412
28.7%
1,257
25%
Types of Households
Table 29 indicates that more than 69% of Auburn’s households consist of families. This
represents a decrease from the 1990 Census when family households accounted for 75.8% of all
Auburn households. It should also be noted that, according to the 2000 Census, females head
8.7% of households in Auburn.
Table 29
Auburn Households by Type, 2000
Household Type
Number of
Households
Percentage
Family Household
4,406
69.4%
Non-Family Household
1,940
30.6%
Since the majority of suburban communities are usually largely made up of single-family homes,
they tend to have a higher percentage of family households; non-family households tend to rent.
In comparison to similar communities (see Table 30), Auburn has far fewer family households
than Charlton, Holden, and Leicester, and slightly less than Millbury and Oxford.
Table 30
Households by Type – Neighboring Communities (2000)
Household
Type
Auburn
Charlton
Family
Household
4,406
69.4%
3,045
80%
Non-Family
Household
1,940
30.6%
743
20%
Holden
Leicester
Millbury
Oxford
4,422
77.4%
2,708
74%
3,442
69.9%
3,598
71%
1,293
22.6%
975
26%
1,485
30.1%
1,460
29%
Housing
63
Housing Demand Assessment & Needs Analysis
The following analysis will document the demand for housing in Auburn, the housing needs of
local residents and what is actually available (and affordable) for housing opportunities. Before
going any further, it is important to outline the assumptions used in this analysis.
•
The analysis makes use of year 2000 statistics so that they may be cross-referenced to the
2000 US Census data.
•
The median family income for the Worcester Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as
determined by the federal Department Housing & Urban Development (HUD) HOME
Program income limits for the year 2000 is $54,400.
•
The State Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) Year 2000 Housing
Certification Program lists the median family affordable purchase price for a new home in the
Worcester MSA at $246,000.
•
Auburn’s poverty-level income figure was obtained from the 2000 US Census.
•
Housing demand and need was calculated for poverty-level households, low-income
households (poverty-level to 50% of the area median income, or AMI), low-to-moderate
income households (50-65% of the AMI), moderate-to-middle income households (65-80%
of the AMI), middle-income households (80-150% of the AMI) and upper income households
(above 150% of the AMI).
•
It was assumed that households making up to 65% of the AMI would not be in the market for
buying a home but instead would most likely rent their housing.
•
It was assumed that households making more than 65% of the AMI would most likely be in
the market for buying a home.
•
For renters, it was assumed that 30% of their annual income would go toward rent.
•
For homebuyers, it was assumed that 28% of their monthly income would go toward a house
mortgage principal and interest. It was further assumed that homebuyers would make a down
payment of at least 10% and have a 30-year mortgage at 7%, a rate generally available in
2000.
•
The number of rental units and their price ranges were estimated from the 2000 Census.
•
Year 2000 home sales data was obtained from the Auburn Assessor’s Office and only armslength home sales were considered qualified in the ensuing analysis. An “arms-length” sale is
a sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller with no unusual circumstances involved
(i.e. sale between members of the same family, sale in proceedings of bankruptcy, etc.)
Table 31 provides an affordability analysis for Auburn rental units. The table outlines the various
renter income categories, the number of Auburn households fitting the income categories, the
number of rental units in Auburn that are affordable to the various income categories and the
gap/surplus for such rental units.
Housing
64
Table 31
Rental Unit Need/Demand Analysis
Income
Group
Range of
Incomes
Range of
Affordable Rent
# of
Households
# of
Units
Deficit/
Surplus
Poverty
$13,290
and Below
$332
and Below
601
178
- 423
Poverty-toLow
$13,290 $27,200
$332 - $680
970
711
- 259
Low-toModerate*
$27,200 $35,360
$680 - $884
478
292
- 186
* = Households earning between 50-65% of the area median income.
Table 31 indicates that Auburn has a shortage of affordable rental units. The 2000 US Census
further supports this assertion as 120 Auburn households were identified as paying 30% to 34.9%
of their monthly income toward rent while 313 households pay 35% or more. It is generally
assumed that renters paying more than 30% of their monthly income toward rent are exceeding
their affordability. The 2002 waiting list of the Auburn Housing Authority further supports the
need for affordable rental units. While this waiting list is made up of a substantial number of nonlocal residents, many of whom are required to apply to numerous housing authorities throughout
the state, the list also contains local Auburn residents in need of housing.
•
Elderly/Handicapped Housing Units (DHCD 667 program): The waiting list contains 19 war
veterans, 51 local persons, 254 non-local persons, and 2 medical transfers.
•
Elderly Housing Units (HUD): The waiting list contains 172 persons.
•
Family Housing Units (DHCD 705 Program): The waiting list contains 22 local persons, 372
non-local persons, and 21 emergency situations.
From a regional perspective, however, Auburn fares well in terms of affordable rental units. The
2000 DHCD Housing Certification Program lists an affordable monthly rental figure of $1,360
(30% of monthly area median family income) for the Worcester MSA. According to the 2000 US
Census, there are 1,412 rental units in Auburn and approximately 40 of them had a monthly rent
over $1,360. Thus, Auburn’s rental units are affordable to those earning 100% of the median
family income when considered within the regional context.
Auburn also fares well in terms of homeownership opportunities. There were 223 arms-length
single-family property sales in Auburn during 2000. Table 32 provides an analysis of demand for
homeownership in Auburn. The table outlines the various homeownership income categories, the
number of Auburn households fitting each category, and the median sales price of various types
of housing units in Auburn for 2000.
Housing
65
Table 32
Homeownership Need/Demand Analysis
Income Group
Range of
Incomes
Range of Affordable
Housing Prices
Number of
Households
Moderate – to – Middle
$35,360 - $43,520
$138,000 - $169,000
391
Middle – to – Upper
$43,520 - $81,600
$169,000 - $318,000
1,505
Upper
$81,600 and above
$318,000 and above
1,279
2000 Median Sales Price For Single Family Home: $154,700
(223 arms-length sales in 2000)
2000 Median Sales Price For Condominium: $102,950
(38 arms-length sales in 2000)
Table 32 indicates that homeownership in Auburn was within the grasp of various income groups
that can participate in the homebuyer market (for this analysis, those households that earn at least
65% of the AMI). As mentioned previously, the median family income in the Worcester MSA
was $54,400 in 2000, with an affordable home purchase price of $246,000 for the median family
income. Of the 222 qualified single-family home sales that took place in Auburn during 2000,
only 17 homes sold above the median family income affordable purchase price of $246,000. In
fact, only 43 homes sold for $200,000 or more, i.e. 179 homes (or 80.6% of the qualified home
sales) sold for less than $200,000. Thus, housing in Auburn is relatively affordable when
considered within the regional context.
However, housing costs (both condominiums and single-family homes) outpaced household
income from 2000 to 2002. Assessor records from January through December of 2002 showed
that there were 38 arms-length condominium sales, and the median sales price increased to
$150,000. There were also 182 arms-length single-family home sales, and the median sales price
increased sharply to $205,000. Because the area median income increased to $58,400 in 2002 and
interest rates decreased to approximately 6%, those households earning 100% of the AMI could
still afford a single-family home in Auburn. However, the moderate-to-middle income group
(65% - 80% of the AMI), having an affordability range between approximately $164,000 $202,000 in 2002, would find the prospect of single-family homeownership much more difficult
to attain.
Units Eligible for Inclusion in the Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory
In 1969, the Legislature enacted M.G.L. Chapter 40B with the goal of increasing the amount of
affordable housing in communities throughout the Commonwealth. It contains two major
components that are meant to assist developers who wish to build housing that meets the
affordable housing criteria as outlined within the law. The first component is the Comprehensive
Permit process, where several local permits are consolidated into a single application to the
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA is authorized to grant waivers from zoning and other
local regulations to make a project economically viable. The second component gives developers
the right to appeal ZBA decisions to the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) in
communities where the percentage of subsidized housing units falls below 10% of the
community’s year-round housing units. In general, housing with a government subsidy
contributes to the inventory.
Housing
66
Table 33
Units Contributing to the Chapter 40B
Subsidized Housing Inventory
Year
Total Year-Round
Housing Units
Total Chapter
40B Units
% Subsidized
Base
1990
5,884
140
2.38%
2000
6,551
190
2.90%
Source: Mass. DHCD
Although the number of eligible housing units in Auburn that contribute toward the state’s
Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory increased by fifty (50) units between 1990 and 2000
(See Table 33), Auburn’s percentage of these housing units amounted to only 2.9% as of 2000,
well below the state’s goal of 10%. Table 34 shows the location and types of these units, which
total 190 units.
Table 34
Chapter 40B Developments
Total
Units
Chapter 40B
Units
Type
Pakachoag St.
90
90
Pheasant Ct.
20
20
Chapter 667 Program
Elderly/handicapped
Chapter 667 Program
Elderly/handicapped
Stoneville Heights
200 Oxford St.
North
60
60
HUD Public Housing
.
Pine Brook Ct.
12
12
Chapter 705 Program
Low Income Family
Auburn Heights
14 Maple Dr.
8
8
Chapter 689 Program
Special Needs
Development Name
Pakachoag Village
Address
Source: Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development
HOUSING GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
Below are Auburn’s Housing Goal and Objectives. They are based upon findings from the
preceding Housing Assessment and Analysis. The recommendations that follow are designed to
help fulfill Auburn’s housing needs over the next ten years and beyond.
A Local Housing Partnership should be formed to work to educate the public about current and
future housing needs and to work to achieve community acceptance of different forms of
affordable housing. A Housing Partnership can play a critical role in providing information to
develop the community support critical to the success of affordable housing policies and
initiatives. Municipalities have a variety of approaches available to help educate the public,
ranging from workshops and public presentations to major media campaigns.
Housing
67
GOAL
Increase Housing Opportunities for a Broad Range of Income Levels and Household Types.
OBJECTIVES
•
Promote Housing Affordability and Maintain the Character of Residential Neighborhoods.
•
Increase the Supply of Affordable Rental Units
•
Make a Good Faith Effort to Comply with Chapter 40B.
•
Improve the Condition of Auburn’s Existing Housing Stock.
•
Promote Home Ownership.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Meeting Objective 1: Promote Housing Affordability and Maintain the Character of
Residential Neighborhoods.
Assessor records indicate that the median sales price for a single family home in Auburn
increased from $154,700 in 2000 to $205,000 through December 2002 (see Table 32,
Homeownership Need/Demand Analysis). In addition, single-family residences constructed in
Auburn over the past few years tend to be larger and more expensive than the existing housing
stock. Strategies to promote housing affordability while maintaining the character of residential
neighborhoods include the following:
A. Adaptive Reuse
The Town should consider the reuse of any abandoned, underutilized, or obsolete property for
housing purposes. While these properties are scarce in Auburn, if such an opportunity presents
itself it would help to direct residential growth to already developed locations in town, alleviating
pressure to develop land in areas without existing infrastructure. It could also be a way to
preserve and/or restore unique architecture in the community, which can also be of historical
significance. Currently, the Town’s zoning bylaws allow non-residential properties to be
converted to residential use by special permit in the RA, RB, RC, RR, RO, LB, and OS Zoning
Districts. To further promote adaptive reuse, the Town may want to consider allowing converted
dwellings by Site Plan Approval in appropriate locations such as the RA, RB, RC, RR, and RO
Zoning Districts.
The Town should inventory publicly and privately owned property, especially vacant,
underutilized land and buildings with residential reuse potential now. Occasionally, such
properties can be acquired through tax taking, donation, negotiation, distress sale, and bank
foreclosure. There are a variety of State sponsored funding options that can be used to
develop/rehabilitate publicly owned properties that have the potential to be converted to
affordable housing.
B. Self-Help Housing
The Town could explore Self-Help Housing programs, perhaps in conjunction with adaptive
reuse. Self-Help programs involve sweat-equity by the homebuyer and volunteer labor of others
Housing
68
to reduce construction costs. Some communities have donated building lots to Habitat for
Humanity to construct affordable single housing units. Under the Habitat for Humanity program,
homebuyers contribute between 300 and 500 hours of sweat equity while working with
volunteers from the community to construct the home. The homeowner buys the property at no
profit for Habitat and obtains a 20-year loan at 0% interest from a revolving loan fund. Monthly
payments go back into Habitat’s revolving loan fund to be used for more housing.
C. Major Residential Development Review
Auburn should adopt a mechanism that allows for the municipal review of large residential
development proposals of multiple lots, including lots being created along the frontage of an
existing Town road. Currently, such development proposals receive no municipal review as they
are created under the Approval Not Required (ANR) process. If a developer had sufficient
frontage to create 20 new lots along an existing public way, the Planning Board would have
limited review authority. The only municipal review occurs when the developer applies for
driveway permits from the Highway Department or building permits from the Building Inspector,
and these permits are issued after the lots have been created.
Having a Major Residential Development Review provision in the Zoning Bylaw would allow for
municipal oversight of site planning issues such as the cumulative impacts of the proposed
development on soil erosion, storm water, ground water, traffic and other impacts on the
neighborhood. It is up to the community to determine what constitutes a “major” residential
development. Some local bylaws start the review process at five newly created lots, while others
begin at ten or more lots.
Meeting Objective 2: Increasing the Supply of Affordable Rental Units
The 2000 Census identified 433 Auburn households that paid more than 30% of their monthly
income toward rent, an amount which is deemed excessive by state and federal policy. In
addition, there is a deficit of rental units affordable to and low-income to moderate-income
individuals. (See Housing Assessment and Analysis above.)
In addition, Auburn’s population is also growing older. Most elderly individuals are on a fixed
income, which often makes it very difficult to continue to maintain their home throughout their
retirement years. Auburn’s 75 and over population has grown from 921 to 1,496 persons between
1990 and 2000, for a 62.4% increase. As health care advances allow Americans to live longer, it
is anticipated that Auburn will have a shortage of affordable elderly housing for some time to
come. Furthermore, the Auburn Housing Authority’s waiting list indicates a strong demand for
senior housing, including many current Auburn residents.
A. The Town Should Promote the Use of its Elderly/Handicapped Congregate Housing
Bylaw.
Auburn’s Zoning Bylaw contains a provision for congregate housing for the elderly and
handicapped in Residential and Local Business districts. Congregate housing offers services such
as nursing, health care, cleaning, food, recreation, and personal services. This provision directly
addresses the need for senior housing alternatives and the Town should encourage its use. Singlefamily homes can have a negative impact on municipal finances, largely due to educational
expenses of school age children. However, senior housing does not impact municipal finances to
such a degree since very few school age children, if any, reside in this type of housing.
Housing
69
B. The Town Could Encourage Multi-Family Dwellings in Appropriate Areas.
Multi-family dwellings are a way to increase housing affordability for a variety of groups
including single persons, small families, the elderly, and owner-occupants who are able to collect
rent to help pay the mortgage. Two family detached dwellings are allowed by Special Permit in
the RA, RB, RC, and RR Districts and by Site Plan Approval in the RO District. Townhouses and
Apartments (between 3 to 12 dwelling units) are allowed by Special Permit in the RA, RB, LB,
and HB Districts and by Site Plan Approval in the RO District. These zoning districts already
have the infrastructure in place to accommodate higher density housing. Such housing tends to be
more affordable than single-family homes on large lots, due to smaller land costs per unit and
lower per unit construction costs. Thus, having more multi-family units would help the Town
bridge the gap in affordable rental units. One way the Town could encourage multi-family
dwellings would be through Adaptive Reuse if such an opportunity presented itself. The Town
could also consider allowing two family detached dwellings by Site Plan Approval in the RA and
RB Districts.
C. The Town Could Adopt an Accessory Apartment Zoning Bylaw.
An accessory apartment is a second dwelling unit located within a single-family home, or it can
be located above a garage or within an accessory structure. Another term for accessory
apartments is “in-law apartments”, for use by a related family member. Accessory apartments
allow elderly people to live in close proximity to their family, as well as young people who
cannot afford their own home. This option lets an elderly parent to live independently with his or
her own separate living space at a low cost. Accessory apartments also allow the primary
homeowner to collect a bit of rent, thus helping them cope with the costs of owning property.
Similar to elderly housing, it is rare for school age children to reside in this type of housing,
lessening any potential impacts on municipal finances. Such units can also be counted on the
subsidized housing inventory if rents are restricted to levels affordable by low and moderateincome households.
Issues to consider when drafting an accessory apartment provision include access/egress to the
apartment, external appearance of the principal or secondary structure, parking, sewage disposal,
trash disposal, size limitations and the permitting process. Allowing accessory apartments would
provide another housing choice for Auburn’s elder residents and young people who cannot yet
afford to buy a home.
Meeting Objective 3: Make a Good Faith Effort to Comply with Chapter 40B.
Chapter 40B of Massachusetts General Laws outlines a municipality’s responsibilities regarding
the provision of low and moderate-income housing. Under the law, Auburn is obligated to
provide 10% of its year-round housing stock restricted to low and moderate-income households,
defined as those earning no more than 80% of the area median income. Only units that have been
built with a subsidy from the state or federal government qualify. At the present time, only 2.9%
of Auburn’s housing stock meets the Chapter 40B definition. Looking at the average home sale
price and average contract rent in Auburn, the Town does provide opportunities for some
affordable housing when Auburn’s numbers are compared regionally. However, as indicated in
the Housing Demand Assessment and Needs Analysis, there is a need for more. Therefore, the
benefits of the Town being proactive in this area include not just compliance with Chapter 40B
but also helping to provide affordable housing units for a broad range of income groups,
including municipal employees, fire fighters, policemen and teachers.
Housing
70
A. Grant Programs, Adaptive Reuse, and Inclusionary/Incentive-Based Zoning
The Town should take a closer look at the State’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the various
housing grant programs offered by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD). Adaptive re-use, Inclusionary Zoning, and Incentive Based Zoning are
also ways to provide more affordable housing while at the same time bringing the Town closer to
compliance with Chapter 40B.
The Massachusetts Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF): The AHTF was established by an act
of the State Legislature and is codified under Chapter 121-D of the Massachusetts General Laws.
The AHTF operates out of DHCD and is administered by MassHousing. The purpose of the fund
is to support the creation/preservation of housing that is affordable to people with incomes that do
not exceed 110% of the area median income. The AHTF can be used to support the acquisition,
development and/or preservation of affordable housing units. AHTF assistance can include:
Deferred payment loans, low/no-interest amortizing loans.
Down payment and closing cost assistance for first-time homebuyers.
Credit enhancements and mortgage insurance guarantees.
Matching funds for municipalities that sponsor affordable housing projects.
Matching funds for employer-based housing and capital grants for public housing.
Housing developments financed by the AHTF can include market-rate units, but the Trust Fund
cannot be used to support such units. The level of assistance provided by the AHTF to a specific
project must be the minimum amount necessary to achieve the desired degree of affordability.
Housing units created through the AHTF can be counted toward the Town’s 10% threshold for
subsidized housing under Chapter 40B.
Inclusionary and Incentive Zoning: The general purpose behind inclusionary zoning and
incentive-based zoning is to increase a community’s affordable housing stock. These methods
require a strong real estate market with high housing costs, thus making them practical options for
the Town of Auburn to investigate. Inclusionary zoning can be seen as the “stick” approach,
while incentive-based zoning is the “carrot” approach. An inclusionary zoning bylaw is one that
requires new subdivisions to set aside a certain percentage of new housing units as below-market
units, i.e., units that can be counted toward the Town’s affordable housing unit inventory under
Chapter 40B. Typically, inclusionary bylaws require that anywhere from 10% to 25% of new
housing units consist of below-market units. The Massachusetts Zoning Act does not explicitly
authorize inclusionary zoning; however, many Commonwealth communities have inclusionary
zoning bylaws on the books and have made the case that such bylaws are legally valid under the
State’s “Home Rule” authority. Massachusetts courts have generally approved of inclusionary
zoning, but have frowned on assessing fees in lieu of providing actual affordable housing units.
Incentive-based zoning attempts to increase the affordable housing stock by offering incentives to
developers to create below-market units as part of their developments. Such incentives can
include higher densities, reduced frontage, reduced setback requirements, a reduction in the
required roadway width, reduced infrastructure connection fees, and other incentives that can
improve a developer’s bottom line. Incentive-based zoning is explicitly authorized within the
Massachusetts Zoning Act. Incentives only become an effective tool when there exists a strong
demand so that developers are willing to build the additional units in return for higher profits.
Housing
71
Both techniques demonstrate a pro-active approach to bring Auburn’s affordable housing
inventory closer to the 10% required under Chapter 40B. Units can be permanently restricted to
remain affordable for low and moderate-income households. Toward that end, Auburn should
investigate both inclusionary zoning and incentive-based zoning and determine which approach
would work best for the Town. The responsible municipal entity is the Planning Board.
B. Chapter 40B Housing Proposals
Training: The Zoning Board of Appeals should attend training sessions on understanding the
Comprehensive Permit process to facilitate local review and understand their role in fashioning
projects that can benefit the community. For example, the Citizen Planner Training Collaborative
(CPTC) offers classes on this subject on an annual basis and will even provide customized
training sessions to individual communities. The Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee web
site has guidelines and examples of model by-laws, and the Massachusetts Housing Partnership
(MHP), a quasi-public state agency, provides technical assistance in helping cities and towns deal
constructively with Chapter 40B applications.
The Local Initiative Program: The Local Initiative Program (LIP) gives municipalities more
flexibility in their efforts to provide affordable housing. The program provides technical and other
non-financial assistance to housing developed through the initiative of local government to serve
households below 80% of the area median income. The program limits the State’s review to the
most basic aspects of affordable housing: the incomes of the people served, the minimum quality
of the housing provided, fair marketing and level of profit. LIP projects must be initiated by the
municipality, either through zoning-based approvals (rezoning, special permits, density bonuses,
etc.), financial assistance and/or through the provision of land or buildings. LIP projects can
include new construction, building conversion, adaptive re-use and building rehabilitation. LIP
projects are usually administered at the local level by a local housing partnership and approved by
the Board of Selectmen. Affordable housing units created by a LIP project will be counted toward
the municipality’s 10% low and moderate-income housing goal under Chapter 40B.
Meeting Objective 4: Improve the Condition of Auburn’s Existing Housing Stock.
As indicated in the Housing Assessment and Analysis, more than 23% of Auburn’s housing stock
(approximately 1,526 homes) was built prior to 1940. It is quite likely that many of these older
residences would not meet today’s various housing codes (plumbing, electricity, weatherproofing, building code, etc.). Not only does housing rehabilitation improve living conditions for
families, it also serves to enhance the visual appearance of neighborhoods. Local officials could
investigate various grant opportunities to see if they make sense for Auburn and property owners.
Funds could also be sought to maintain/modernize existing subsidized housing units.
While the Town may not have the time or resources to apply for many grant opportunities, there
are numerous private sector planning consultants that would be more than willing to work with
Auburn on a specific grant application. Another option would be to utilize the grant writing
services of the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC). Many member
communities have utilized the services of the agency to assist them with a particular grant
application.
There are numerous grant opportunities for housing rehabilitation projects, especially when they
benefit low and moderate-income families. The following is a brief description of available state
and federal housing rehabilitation grants that can be utilized by the Town.
Housing
72
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program: This program was developed at the
federal level by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is
implemented at the State level by DHCD. Funds for housing rehabilitation (code violations,
roof repairs, furnaces, etc.) are available on an annual basis. Other activities are also eligible
under this program. Community Development Block Grants are very competitive, but
housing rehabilitation is strongly encouraged by the program.
The Housing Development Support Program: The Housing Development Support Program is
a component of the CDBG program and is designed to assist with specific affordable housing
projects containing fewer than eight units. Typical projects include housing rehabilitation,
new construction, elderly and special needs housing, and the conversion of obsolete and
under-utilized buildings. Funds can be used for acquisition, rehabilitation, site work and
related infrastructure. 51% of the units must be affordable to and occupied by households
earning up to 80% of the area median income, and deed restrictions must be recorded for a
minimum of 15 years to insure the units remain affordable for that period.
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program: The HOME program is offered by HUD
(managed at the state level by DHCD) and is designed to assist low and moderate-income
households by responding to the unique needs of individual communities. The HOME
program offers a variety of options to increase housing affordability, including providing
purchase or rehabilitation financing assistance to existing homeowners or new buyers,
building or rehabilitating housing for rent or ownership, acquiring and improving land, and
demolishing dilapidated housing.
The Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation (MHIC): MHIC offers a broad array of
financial products for affordable housing and community development projects. MHIC
specializes in providing construction loans to for-profit and nonprofit developers for both
rental and homeowner housing. MHIC will support new construction and rehabilitation,
rental properties of five or more units, elderly housing, homeownership properties, and mixed
commercial/residential projects. In particular, MHIC can assist developers who have
difficulty finding financing from traditional sources, and will help put together complex deals
using a variety of funding sources.
The ‘Get the Lead Out’ Program: This HUD-sponsored program is managed at the State
level by the MassHousing. This is a lead abatement program available to single family homes
and two-to-four family properties. Funds are generally offered on an annual basis.
Home Improvement Loan Program: Another HUD program managed by MassHousing, this
program offers funds to eligible owners of one-to-four unit residential properties so that they
can make necessary improvements to their residential structures. Eligible improvements
include: sewage disposal systems and plumbing needs; alterations and renovations that will
enhance property safety; energy-related improvements and repairs designed to bring the
structure up to local building codes.
Community Septic Management Program: This program is administered at the State level by
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Communities may borrow up to
$200,000 at a time from the Water Pollution Abatement Trust for 20 years. The Town may
then loan funds to homeowners at 5% interest for repairing failing septic systems.
Weatherization Assistance: HUD provides funding assistance to regional non-profit
organizations for fuel assistance and weatherization programs. The Worcester Community
Housing
73
Action Council, Inc. is the regional agency that provides such services for Worcester County
communities. In order to be eligible for the weatherization program, the applicant must
receive some form of federal fuel assistance benefits.
Meeting Objective 5: Promote Homeownership.
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 1,127 renter-occupied housing units in Auburn
making up 17.8% of all occupied housing units. Owning a home is still the goal of most
Americans, and research suggests that homeownership has a positive influence on families,
neighborhoods and the economy. With almost 18% of Auburn residents renting there housing,
some could be unaware that homeownership is within their grasp.
A. Homebuyer Counseling and Education
Homebuyer Counseling and Education are valuable marketing and outreach tools that can help
Auburn residents to bridge the information gap and prepare them for a successful home buying
application. Auburn could plan a first-time homeownership initiative by partnering with an
agency that provides homebuyer counseling, or simply make it known to Auburn residents that
such educational organizations exist. There are many nonprofit agencies that offer this service
and most have informational brochures that could be displayed at Municipal Offices. RCAP
Solutions in Gardner, for example is a regional non-profit housing agency that provides a variety
of housing related services, including counseling and resource referral services for first time
home buyers, help for renters, and even help for domestic violence situations. Secondly, the
Massachusetts Homeownership Collaborative, coordinated by the Citizens Housing and Planning
Association (CHAPA), provides technical assistance and training to homebuyer counseling
agencies, which in turn offer homebuyer education workshops and individual counseling. The
CHAPA website (www.chapa.org) maintains a list of counseling agencies and their current and
planned activities. Many conventional lenders conduct similar programs. Finally, a new
homeownership assistance agency has opened in Worcester, the NeighborWorks Homeownership
Center. The Center offers counseling, training, referrals to lenders and other services for
individuals wishing to purchase a house.
B. Soft Second Loan Program
Auburn already participates in the Soft Second Loan Program, which combines a conventional
first mortgage with a subsidized second mortgage to help low and moderate-income first-time
homebuyers qualify for a mortgage. The homebuyer makes a 3% down payment (1.5% needs to
be their own money). A standard 30-year fixed rate mortgage covers up to 77% of the purchase
price, avoiding the additional expense of private mortgage insurance. A subsidized second
mortgage covers the remaining 20%; the borrower pays interest only for the first ten years, but
some eligible buyers may receive a subsidy for some of the interest on the second mortgage. By
year 11, the homeowner takes over the entire payment of the soft second mortgage.
C. Senior Work-Off Abatements
The Council On Aging could conduct a survey of elderly individuals to see if there is any interest
in a program such as this. A Senior Work-Off Abatement Program could help some individuals
maintain homeownership. A town employs seniors to do needed work for the community at an
hourly rate. Rather than receiving a paycheck, the seniors can apply the income to offset property
taxes or other municipal charges. Each community is given some flexibility to set its own
program rules to meet its local needs, such as age, income, and other eligibility standards.
Housing
74
HOUSING UNIT PRODUCTION AND LAND USE SUITABILITY
Housing Unit Production
According to Table 16, Auburn is expected to grow by 600 persons between the years 2000 and
2010. Taking into consideration the trend toward smaller household sizes, it is anticipated that an
additional 322 housing units will need to be produced between the years 2000 and 2010 in order
to house the expected population increase.
In 2004 the median family affordable purchase price for a new home in the Worcester MSA was
$285,592 (based upon 150% of the median family income). Approximately 16 out of 36 (44.44%)
units created in Auburn meet affordable criteria. In terms of the Town’s housing unit production
goals, the Town should try to maintain this balance. The short-term numerical goal for total
housing unit production should be a minimum of 32 housing units per year, and 44.44% or about
14 units should meet affordable purchase price guidelines. The Master Plan Committee indicated
that the Town should strive to provide new homeownership units that are affordable to those
earning between 80% and 120% of the median family income, or an approximate purchase price
between $152,315 and $228,472 respectively. This is based upon the Worcester MSA 2004
median family income of $69,200.
Housing unit production should promote affordability across a broad range of incomes, with a
mixture of uses that maintain the character of existing neighborhoods: single-family units,
accessory apartments, townhouses, duplexes, and higher density housing. The rationale for this
approach is that Auburn is primarily a community of single-family owner-occupied residences.
However, alternatives can work, and provided that they are carefully reviewed and planned, they
should be encouraged. Methods to promote housing affordability and increase housing unit
production for this mixture of housing have been outlined earlier in this Plan.
Since the Town has an unbalanced mix of ownership units (82.2% owner v. 17.8% renter), the
Town may wish to increase its percentage of rental units to help meet its current and projected
needs for this type of housing. As illustrated previously, the cost of homeownership is beyond the
means of many Auburn residents; 433 households pay more than 30% of their monthly income
toward rent, and the Auburn Housing Authority waiting list for rental units consist of numerous
town residents in need of family/handicapped/elderly housing. It should also be noted that
Auburn’s elderly population increased by 575 persons over the last decade and this trend is
expected to continue. Coupled with health care advances, it is anticipated that Auburn will have a
shortage of affordable elderly housing.
To meet local needs, the Town could increase its percentage of affordable rental units over time
without changing the character of neighborhoods by setting a realistic and attainable goal; out of
the additional 322 units to be produced by the year 2010, at least 25% or about 81 units should be
rentals. Since rental units are often not produced each year, the short-term goal could be
computed on a two-year basis or approximately 16 units every two years. This would help to
meet the Town’s housing needs to provide reasonably priced units for its young adults, municipal
employees, teachers, fire and police, and the increasing elderly population on a fixed income.
Land Use Suitability
The following identifies development potential throughout the Town. It is to be used together
with housing recommendations, housing unit production goals, the Auburn Build-Out Analysis,
natural resources and environmental constraints, and the Housing Suitability Map included in this
Housing
75
Plan. A comparison of the Town’s Zoning Map leads to the following conclusions concerning
future residential development and land use suitability.
The highest density housing should occur along major thoroughfares, adjacent to the retail
centers, and in close proximity to public transportation. Apartments and adaptive re-use should be
encouraged in these areas if such opportunities arise. This option is allowed in the Mixed Use
Overlay District. However, such a proposal would be required to go to Auburn Town Meeting for
a zoning map change perhaps proving too cumbersome. Furthermore, there is only one Mixed
Use Overlay District in Town (the old Auburn Drive-In site on Route 20 now containing a Home
Depot and BJ’s) with limited land available. Since mixed use is now widely recognized as a
“Smart Growth” tool, the Town could re-work the Mixed Use Overlay District into a Special
Permit use in the LB (Local Business) and HB (Highway Business) District. Higher density
housing units would help to serve the needs of young adults, empty nesters, small families,
special needs citizens, and others seeking alternatives to single family housing.
The second highest density would occur in the RA District (10,000 square feet minimum), which
further decreases as one moves to the RB District (20,000 square feet minimum). Two family
detached dwellings, town houses, and apartments all require a Special Permit in these Districts
(see Table 35). Two family dwellings can help lower per unit costs and even provide a rental unit
for owner occupant to collect rent to help pay the mortgage. The Town could require Site Plan
Approval (SPA) for two family dwellings similar to that of the RO (Residential Office) District.
Converted dwellings could also require SPA in these districts to promote adaptive reuse. With the
necessary infrastructure already in place, these districts are a good location for elderly/special
needs/congregate housing and other elderly housing options such as senior residential and
retirement communities, which could be added to the Town’s by-law.
Table 35
Residential Uses Permitted by Zoning District
Residential Use
RA
RB
RC
RR
RO
LB
HB
GI
IA
IP
OS
One Family
Detached
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
SP
N
N
N
N
SP
Two Family
Detached
SP
SP
SP
SP
SPA
N
N
N
N
N
SP
Town House
SP
SP
N
N
SPA
N
N
N
N
N
SP
Apartments
SP
SP
N
N
SPA
SP
SP
N
N
N
SP
Converted
Dwellings
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
N
N
N
N
SP
Combined
Business and
Dwelling
N
N
N
N
SPA
SP
SP
N
N
N
N
Congregate
Housing
SP
SP
SP
SP
SPA
SP
SP
N
N
N
N
Notes: Y= Yes, N= No, SP = Special Permit, SPA = Site Plan Approval
Converted Building: A building that is transformed from a non-residential use to a residential use.
Congregate Housing: A development operated under a common management, which provides
services for persons 55 years and over, or handicapped persons under 55; such services may
include nursing and health care, cleaning, food, recreational, transportation and personal services.
Housing
76
Map 7
Housing Suitability Map
Housing
77
The RC District (40,000 square feet minimum) and the RR District (60,000 square feet minimum)
are the Town’s largest lot districts, where a more rural, low-density development pattern prevails.
There are still stretches of roadways in the RR District that have yet to be built upon. In fact,
according to the build-out study, approximately 34% of the Town is zoned RR, and it has the
highest development potential (824 buildable lots) of Auburn’s residential districts. The RC and
RR Districts are both desirable locations for single-family homes and accessory apartments
serving families, particularly through Open Space Residential Development (OSRD), which
permits smaller minimum lot sizes and therefore results in shorter lengths of roads, shorter sewer
and water lines, and more open space. In order to encourage its use in the still rural areas of
Auburn, OSRD should be allowed by site plan review of the Planning Board, rather than by
special permit as is currently required. The OSRD provision offers a density bonus of up to 25%
over what would otherwise be permitted if the applicant provides traffic or pedestrian
improvements and/or open space that is landscaped or has unusual value to the community tract.
The Town could propose adding a bonus for affordable housing units.
IMPLEMENTATION
The following recommendations will assist Auburn in addressing the housing needs identified in
the Housing Assessment and Analysis. These needs include: enhancing affordability and
maintaining the character of residential neighborhoods; assisting lower income groups and the
Town’s growing elderly population; increasing the supply of affordable housing; making a good
faith effort to comply with Chapter 40B; improving the physical condition of the housing stock;
and promoting homeownership. The following is an implementation strategy that the Town could
utilize to meet its housing needs.
First, the Board of Selectmen should form a Local Housing Partnership to assume
responsibility for implementing some of the recommendations made in the report.
Participating members could include interested citizens, municipal board members, and
members of the private sector with experience in housing issues, such as mortgage officers,
developers, etc. The Local Housing Partnership should work to educate the public about its
housing needs and the social and economic benefits associated with different forms of
affordable housing. Workshops and public presentations could be arranged to enhance
community support for affordable housing policies and initiatives. (Responsible Entity: Board
of Selectmen, Local Housing Partnership)
The Town should encourage small-scale multi-family dwellings in areas of the community
that are zoned for this type of use. Higher density housing can be more affordable and can
also alleviate some pressure to develop housing in more rural areas. One way the Town could
further promote multi-family dwellings is through adaptive reuse. An inventory of public and
private land/buildings suitable for multi-family housing should be conducted now and
updated continuously on a regular basis. (Responsible Entity: Local Housing Partnership)
The Town Administrator should start investigating grant opportunities this year, including
those that would improve the physical condition of the housing stock. In particular, the Town
could apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. As part of this
process, the Town should conduct a windshield survey to determine housing conditions
throughout the Town to help determine where pockets of substandard housing conditions
might exist. Some communities have recruited college students to assist in this effort.
(Responsible Entity: Town Administrator and Local Housing Partnership)
Housing
78
Usually, CDBG applications require a substantial amount of time and effort to prepare. The
Local Housing Partnership should consult with the Board of Selectmen and determine
whether or not to apply for CDBG funds. Such applications are very competitive; and if the
Town is not at first successful, it should reapply the following year. (Responsible Entity:
Board of Selectmen and Local Housing Partnership)
The Town should encourage the use of its Elderly/Handicapped Congregate Housing Bylaw.
Auburn’s older population is increasing. Encouraging the use of the elderly/handicapped
congregate housing bylaw could provide housing for a segment of the population that is not
adequately served by Auburn’s housing supply. Also, senior housing does not result in a
negative fiscal loss to the Town since very few school age children would reside in this type
of housing. (Responsible Entity: Planning Board)
The Town should consider adopting an accessory apartment zoning bylaw. An accessory
apartment bylaw would provide housing for a segment of the population that is not
adequately served by Auburn’s housing supply. Another by-law that could be included in the
Town’s Zoning Regulations is Major Residential Development Review. Such a bylaw can
help to maintain the character of its residential neighborhoods. (Responsible Entity: Planning
Board)
There are more than 1,127 occupied rental units in Auburn and most Americans strive toward
the goal of owning their own home. Furthermore, homeownership promotes stability, has a
positive impact on neighborhoods, and is good for the economy. The Town should continue
to participate in the Soft Second Loan Program, and display homebuyer counseling and
education brochures at Municipal Offices.
Self-Help Housing is also a way to promote affordable homeownership. The Local Housing
Partnership should take the first step toward implementing this recommendation by
contacting Habitat for Humanity to determine the appropriate next steps to develop self-help
housing in Auburn.
To explore interest in a Senior Work-Off Abatement Program, the Council On Aging should
conduct a survey of elderly individuals. A Senior Work-Off Abatement Program could help
elderly individuals maintain homeownership by reducing the local property tax liability of
seniors in exchange for work provided to the municipality. If there is sufficient interest, other
communities that have such a program can be contacted and used as models to create a
program that makes sense for Auburn. (Responsible Entity: Council On Aging)
The Zoning Board of Appeals should establish review criteria and regulations now for
dealing deal with Comprehensive Permits, and attend training sessions to gain knowledge
before an application is received. Given Auburn’s geographic location and escalating housing
costs, there is a distinct possibility that one will be proposed in the future. If that happens, the
ZBA will be well-prepared. (Responsible Entity: Zoning Board of Appeals)
Over the long term, as the real estate market continues to strengthen and housing costs
escalate in Auburn, the Town should investigate adoption of an inclusionary zoning or
incentive-based zoning bylaw. This technique either requires, or offers incentives to, private
developers to build affordable housing by harnessing the strong market demand for new
housing in the Region. (Responsible Entity: Planning Board)
Housing
79
To help retain rural character in RR and RC districts, use of the OSRD bylaw should be
encouraged. By allowing this form of development by site plan review rather than by special
permit, the review and approval process can be considerably shortened and greater certainty
of approval provided to developers if they comply with bylaw’s standards.
Housing
80
CHAPTER 5:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ASSESSMENT OF AUBURN’S CURRENT ECONOMIC BASE
Auburn’s Labor Force
The number of employed Auburn residents has grown steadily since the economic recession in
the early 1990’s, growing from a low of 7,610 employed people in 1991 to 8,974 by the year
2005 (an overall increase of 18%). Conversely, Auburn’s local unemployment rate dropped from
a high of 8.9% in 1991 to a low of 2.4% by the year 2000. Auburn residents weathered the
economic downturn in the early years of the decade reasonably well; although the Town’s
unemployment rate crept up to 4.9% in 2002, by 2004 it had fallen back to 3.5%. While local
residents are prone to state and national economic cycles, Auburn’s rate has been consistently
below that of the state as a whole, suggesting that Auburn residents have been slightly less prone
to layoffs than other communities when the state’s economy declines.
Table 36
Employment Status of Auburn Residents
Year
Total Auburn
Labor Force
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment
Rate
State
Rate
1991
8,358
7,610
748
8.9%
9.1%
1992
8,261
7,633
628
7.6%
8.6%
1993
8,329
7,861
468
5.6%
6.9%
1994
8,377
7,998
379
4.5%
6.0%
1995
8,135
7,788
347
4.3%
5.4%
1996
8,132
7,860
272
3.3%
4.3%
1997
8,439
8,184
255
3.0%
4.0%
1998
8,680
8,460
220
2.5%
3.3%
1999
8,662
8,451
211
2.4%
3.2%
2000
8,499
8,293
206
2.4%
2.6%
2001
8,616
8,374
242
2.8%
3.7%
2002
9,216
8,767
449
4.9%
5.3%
2003
8,881
8,474
407
4.6%
5.4%
2004
8,974
8,660
314
3.5%
4.1%
Source: Massachusetts Division of Unemployment Assistance
Note: Employment within Table 36 is measured by place of residence
81
Number and Types of Jobs in Auburn
The Massachusetts Division of Unemployment Assistance is the State entity in charge of tracking
the changes taking place in the various sectors of the State’s economy at both the state and local
levels. Tables 22 and 23 below present the changes that took place in Auburn’s local economy
from 2001 to 2004. The number of establishments has increased steadily during this four-year
period, growing by an average of ten per year. However, employment experienced a significant
decrease, losing 883 workers or 7.6% of the employment base in Auburn. The largest loss
occurred during the recession of 2001 and 2002, and smaller losses have continued to occur in
2003 and 2004. Both total wages earned in Auburn and the average weekly wage increased
during the period despite the loss of total employment. The average wage in Auburn increased by
16.8% during the period. In contrast, the Consumer Price Index for the Boston area increased by
9.4% during the period, indicating that wages in Auburn increased at a much faster rate than
inflation. As a result, consumers will have more disposable income to spend locally and spread
more dollars throughout the economy.
Table 37
Employment and Wages in Auburn
2001
Establishments
Total Wages (Million $)
Average Employment
Average Weekly Wage
2002
2003
2004
Change
574
591
609
613
39
6.8%
$347.88
$349.59
$364.44
$375.49
$27.61
7.9%
11,564
10,807
10,776
10,681
-883
-7.6%
$579
$622
$650
$676
$97
16.8%
Table 38 provides information on the type of jobs found in Auburn. Given Auburn’s position as a
regional commercial hub, it is not surprising that the largest number of jobs is found in retail
trade, with over 3,100 retail jobs, or 29.4% of all jobs in Auburn. However, it is surprising that
retail jobs have shown a steady decrease in the past several years, with a loss of 860 jobs from
2001 to 2004, or 21.5%. This decline accounts for almost all of the total loss of 883 jobs shown
above in Table 37. It is unclear why this trend is occurring since only one major retailer (Barnes
and Noble) left Auburn during this period. This trend may be reversed in the years ahead with the
proposed Lowe’s Home Improvement Store.
Other strengths of the local economy include Education and Health Services (1,354 jobs in 2004),
Accommodation and Food Services (1,071 jobs), Manufacturing (1,049 jobs), Wholesale Trade
(958 jobs), Construction (766 jobs), and Administrative and Waste Services (636 jobs). The
recent addition of four new hotels and many restaurants accounts for the high number of jobs in
Accommodation and Food Services, and indicates that there is a strong hospitality sector in
Auburn. With the large employment base in Auburn and convenient location to major highways,
Auburn can work to build upon this strength to cater to tourist and business travelers. The greatest
increase in jobs occurred in Administrative and Waste Services (222 jobs) and Education and
Health Services (139 jobs).
The bad news can be seen in the loss of a large number of jobs in several sectors. Manufacturing
lost 215 jobs. It has been a significant problem statewide retaining manufacturers, and Auburn
employers would seem to be subject to the same forces causing a decline in this important
component of the regional economy. Transportation and Warehousing lost 131 jobs or 58% of all
82
jobs since 2001. Auburn is an ideal location for such companies, and it can be expected that this
trend will be reversed over time. Similarly, Wholesale Trade lost 62 jobs during the period.
Table 38
Workforce Employment by Sector
2001
Construction
2002
2003
2004
Change
785
747
769
766
-19
Manufacturing
1,264
1,153
1,048
1,049
-215
Wholesale Trade
1,020
1,092
1,042
958
-62
Retail Trade
4,005
3,257
3,119
3,145
-860
225
163
98
94
-131
Information
116
102
76
74
-42
Finance and Insurance
343
326
397
422
79
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
133
95
119
119
-14
Professional and Technical
Services
282
275
271
281
-1
Administrative and Waste
Services
414
652
692
636
222
Health
1,215
1,165
1,324
1,354
139
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
113
95
125
103
-10
Accommodation and Food
Services
1,071
1,107
1,146
1,071
0
Other Services, Excluding
Administration
374
385
370
402
28
11,564
10,807
10,776
10,681
-883
Transportation
Warehousing
Education
Services
and
Total, All Industries
and
Table 39 allows for a comparison of the number of jobs in neighboring towns. The table also
provides 2004 employment and wages to compare Auburn with neighboring communities.
83
Table 39
Employment and Wages – Year 2004 Comparison
Auburn
Charlton
Holden
Leicester
Millbury
Oxford
613
298
333
217
300
314
Total Wages (Million $) $375.49
$110.62
$147.80
$67.36
$156.04
$123.82
10,681
3,146
3,793
2,088
4,539
3,488
$676
$676
$749
$620
$661
$683
Establishments
Average Employment
Average Weekly Wage
Table 39 indicates that Auburn has nearly twice the number of establishments as its closest
competitor, Holden. As a result it also has more than double the number of employees of
Millbury, with the second highest number. With similar population sizes, Auburn clearly has
become a sub-regional economic center for southern Worcester County. Over $375 million was
earned in wages in Auburn in 2004. However, the average weekly wage is below other
communities due in part to the very high number of retail jobs in Auburn. This suggests a strategy
to seek to diversify the economy by attracting higher paying jobs in fields such as manufacturing
and advanced technology operations.
According to a report conducted by the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce in August of
2002 entitled “100 Largest Companies, Worcester Region”, Auburn’s largest employers are
Imperial Distributors, Inc., 33 Sword Street (535 employees), Auburn Public Schools (415
employees), R.H. White Construction Co., 41 Central Street (300 employees), and Worcester
Envelope Company, 22 Millbury Street (265 employees). In addition, according to the Worcester
Area Chamber of Commerce, there are four industrial parks located in Auburn: 1. The Auburn
Industrial Park along Sword Street has 25 companies that employ a minimum of 859 persons; 2.
The Mass Industrial Park at 19 Technology Drive has 8 companies that employ a total of 1,008
persons; 3. The Fairfax Industrial Park along St. Mark Street has 7 companies that employ a
minimum of 240 persons; and, 4. The Interchange Industrial Park along Route 20 has 4
companies with a total employment of at least 135 persons.
Auburn’s success in attracting new economic development is principally a result of its excellent
transportation access. Principal highways are the Massachusetts Turnpike (Interstate Route 90),
Route 20, which parallels the Turnpike in a general east-west direction; and Interstate Route 290,
which runs north-south. As a result, Auburn serves as a regional economic center, especially for
retail and consumer services, and offers job opportunities for workers of all skill levels including
opportunities for low and moderate-income groups. Any economic development marketing
efforts should focus on the advantages of an Auburn location due to its ease of access and large
population base within reasonable travel time.
Where Residents of Auburn and Neighboring Towns Work
Table 40 below indicates that roughly 1,746 persons or approximately 21.6% of Auburn’s
employed people worked in Auburn in the year 2000, while roughly 6,321 people or 78.4%
worked out of town. In contrast, 26.2% of Auburn workers worked in town in 1990. As a result,
travel time to work increased from 18.6 minutes in 1990 to 21.9 minutes in 2000. However, this
is still less than the state rate of 27.0 minutes travel time to work.
The highest percentage of residents working in their municipality (place of residence) was the
Town of Millbury at 21.9%, followed very closely by Auburn (21.6%). Like Auburn, the Towns
84
of Holden and Leicester also had fewer residents working in-town in the year 2000 than in 1990
while the towns of Charlton, Millbury, and Oxford had a higher percentage.
Table 40
Location of Work (In-Town, Out-of-Town)
Municipality
Total
Workers
Worked in
Town
% Worked
in Town
Worked
Outside of
Town
% Worked
Outside of
Town
Auburn
8,067
1,746
21.6%
6,321
78.4%
Charlton
5,790
1,099
19.0%
4,691
81.0%
Holden
7,856
1,099
14.0%
6,757
86.0%
Leicester
5,510
936
17.0%
4,574
83.0%
Millbury
6,696
1,465
21.9%
5,231
78.1%
Oxford
7,035
1,294
18.4%
5,741
81.6%
Note: Employment within Table 40 is measured by place of residence
Measures of Wealth
There are measures of wealth that reflect the health of the local economy by describing the
incomes of local residents: per capita, median household and median family incomes, as well as
the percent of people for whom poverty status was determined.
Per capita income is equal to the total income generated by a population divided by the number of
persons in that area. Communities with higher number of persons per household or smaller
household incomes would likely have smaller per capita income figures. The per capita income
for Massachusetts, using the 2000 U.S. Census, was $25,952, while that of Auburn was $23,802,
slightly more than 8% below the State average. However, Auburn’s per capita income was higher
than that of its neighboring communities with the exception of Holden (see Table 41).
Table 41
Measures of Wealth for Auburn and Comparable Communities, 2000
Community
Per Capita
Income
Median
Household
Income
Median
Family
Income
% People
Living Below
Poverty
Auburn
$23,802
$51,753
$60,805
3.3%
Charlton
$23,626
$63,033
$70,208
5.6%
Holden
$27,971
$64,297
$73,614
3.1%
Leicester
$20,822
$55,039
$64,202
4.3%
Millbury
$23,531
$51,415
$62,564
6.3%
Oxford
$21,828
$52,233
$58,973
7.8%
Worcester PMSA
$22,997
$47,949
$58,926
9.8%
Massachusetts
$25,952
$50,502
$61,664
9.3%
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
85
In Table 41, family incomes are differentiated from other household incomes. For example, a
single student living alone is considered a household but not a family. According to the 2000 U.S.
Census, Auburn’s median household income ($51,753) is more than both the Worcester PMSA
and Massachusetts rates but less than that of neighboring communities with the exception of
Millbury ($51,415). Auburn’s median family income ($60,805) is less than the Massachusetts
rate ($61,664) but more than the Worcester PMSA ($58,926). In comparison to neighboring
communities, Auburn’s median family income is lower with the exception of Oxford ($58,973),
indicating slightly lower incomes for Auburn households and families. On the positive side, their
is relatively little poverty in Auburn, with only 3.3% earning an income below the poverty line
compared to 9.8% for the State as a whole.
Any effort to increase economic activity in Auburn should focus on increasing wages and
creating new jobs for the Auburn labor force. There are several ways in which economic
development efforts can support these goals. They include attracting and retaining businesses
with good-paying jobs, seeking to diversify the economy with advanced technology companies,
encouraging local entrepreneurship, and providing social services, such as subsidized daycare and
pre-schools to support single-parent families and households with two working parents.
Education
As shown in Table 42, residents with a high school diploma, but no higher education, represent
the largest segment of the Auburn population in terms of educational attainment. The second
largest group (20.3%) has some college education, followed by those with a bachelor’s degree
(15.5%). Slightly more than 11% of Auburn residents age 25 and over have no high school
diploma, and only 8.7% have a graduate or professional degree. According to Table 42, Auburn
appears to keep pace with its neighbors in terms of higher educational attainment with more of its
population having either a Bachelors or Graduate Degree than Leicester, Millbury, and Oxford
but fewer than Charlton and Holden.
In is interesting to compare Auburn with the overall state population. Similar to Auburn, the
largest segment contains those with a high school diploma, but no higher education (27.3%).
However, the state data contains higher numbers in the groups at both ends of the educational
attainment spectrum than the Auburn data. Notably, Auburn has substantially fewer residents
with advanced degrees compared to the statewide population. In Auburn, 24.2% have a
Bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 33.2% for the State as a whole. It has been well
established that college educated adults on average have a higher earning power over their career
than those without such a degree. For those not so inclined, opportunities for developing skills
needed in today’s workforce are crucial to obtaining a good-paying job. The challenge for
Auburn is to improve its median household and median family income and its quality of life
through improved employment opportunities that require higher levels of training. Developing a
market for higher learning in Auburn will require cooperation between the Town, local business
partnerships, local schools, and colleges.
86
Table 42
Educational Attainment
Population 25 Years and Over
No High
School
Diploma
High
School
Graduate
Some
College
Auburn
11.2%
34.2%
20.3%
10.1%
15.5%
8.7%
Charlton
13.2%
32.4%
19.0%
9.0%
15.9%
10.5%
Holden
6.0%
21.2%
17.9%
9.4%
26.8%
18.6%
Leicester
15.4%
35.2%
22.0%
7.0%
14.6%
5.7%
Millbury
16.3%
38.5%
19.3%
8.1%
12.0%
5.8%
Oxford
14.7%
39.7%
18.5%
9.4%
10.8%
6.9%
Mass.
15.2%
27.3%
17.1%
7.2%
19.5%
13.7%
Municipality
Associate Bachelor’s
Degree
Degree
Graduate or
Professional
Degree
Source: 2000 U.S. Census
Contribution to the Local Tax Base
In fiscal year 2003, Auburn levied a total of $19,729,220 in taxes, based on a local tax rate of
$13.28 per $1,000 (Residential, Open Space) and $23.97 per $1,000 (Commercial, Industrial,
Personal Property) of assessed valuation. Auburn homeowners accounted for approximately
56.9% of the total 2003 tax base ($11,237,980), while the business and industries accounted for
approximately 39.8% of the tax base ($7,819,938). The remainder (slightly over 3%) was derived
from open space ($37,924) and taxes on personal property ($633,378). The next two tables look
at how Auburn compares to neighboring communities in terms of the commercial and industrial
tax base.
Table 43 shows that Auburn’s commercial development nets a considerably higher amount of
actual tax dollars compared with neighboring communities and has the highest percentage of total
tax levy (29.26%) by far. Table 43 reflects the fact that Auburn has a substantial amount of retail
and consumer services and serves as a regional economic center, as discussed above.
Table 43
Commercial Tax Base Comparison
Community
FY 2003
Tax Rate
Commercial
Taxes Levied
Assessed
Valuation
% of Total
Tax Levy
Auburn
$23.97
$5,733,737
$239,204.724
29.26%
Charlton
$12.91
$600,075
$46,481,408
1.29%
Holden
$16.23
$838,828
$51,683,800
4.25%
Leicester
$14.00
$358,694
$25,621,000
4.78%
Millbury
$15.00
$609,897
$40,659,825
4.8%
Oxford
$14.46
$819,424
$56,668,355
7.4%
Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services
87
Table 44
Industrial Tax Base Comparison
Community
FY 2003
Tax Rate
Industrial
Taxes Levied
Assessed
Valuation
% of Total
Tax Levy
Auburn
$23.97
$2,086,201
$87,033,820
10.57%
Charlton
$12.91
$465,575
$36,063,165
4.49%
Holden
$16.23
$357,979
$22,056,600
1.81%
Leicester
$14.00
$201,592
$14,399,458
2.68%
Millbury
$15.00
$635,784
$42,385,600
5.0%
Oxford
$14.46
$679,418
$46,986,000
6.14%
Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Division of Local Services
Table 44 indicates that the surrounding towns derive less of their tax base from industry than
Auburn. While the difference is not nearly as significant as the contrast in commercial taxes
levied noted above, Auburn’s 10.57% it is still more 70% higher than the second highest
community, Oxford, with 6.14% of its tax base made up of industrial uses.
Taken together, Tables 28 and 29 indicate that Auburn’s commercial tax base is almost 3 times
higher than its industrial tax base and the two combined provide a total of almost 40% of the
Town’s entire tax base. In contrast, Oxford, which has the second largest commercial/tax base,
contributes 13.54% toward the town’s entire tax base. Interestingly, Auburn’s higher commercial
and industrial tax rate does not appear to be an impediment to attracting new economic
development. Auburn’s commercial/industrial tax base is instrumental in terms of funding needed
community services and minimizing the tax burden on residents. As a result, Auburn has a lower
residential tax rate ($13.28) than all neighboring communities with the exception of Charlton
($12.91).
Vacant, Developable Industrially Zoned Land
CMRPC completed a build-out analysis for Auburn in 2000. A build-out analysis is a planning
tool that determines the amount of vacant, developable land in town and assesses the potential
impacts if this land were fully developed under existing zoning standards. A build-out analysis
does not attempt to determine when a community will be fully developed; rather, it simply
attempts to determine how much additional development the community can accommodate if all
of its remaining vacant land was developed according to the Town’s current zoning policies and
environmental limitations for development. (See additional discussion in Chapter 2.)
In the case of Auburn, a moderate amount of vacant, developable land was identified (roughly
404 acres) within the Town’s commercial and industrial zoning districts. Table 45 below presents
a rough breakdown of the amount of vacant, developable land in each of the Town’s nonresidential zoning districts and how much commercial/industrial floor space could be created if
the land were fully developed under the Town’s current zoning standards.
88
Table 45
Non-Residential Build-Out Analysis
Zoning District
Local Business
Available
Land (Acres)
Potential Floor Space
(Square Feet)
Potential
New Jobs*
6
34,435
138
136
293,478
1,174
General Industry
67
303,897
1,216
Industrial District
69
511,973
2,048
Industrial Park
126
1,305,000
5,220
TOTAL
404
2,448,783
9,796
Highway Business
Source: CMRPC, Build-Out Analysis for the Town of Auburn
*
The new jobs figure is based on four employees per 1,000 square feet of floor space
(multiplier supplied as part of the EOEA build-out methodology).
Table 45 indicates that 9,796 new jobs could be created under a full build-out scenario. With
11,594 jobs existing in 2000, this would mean that Auburn would have 21,390 jobs if the Town
were fully built out under its current zoning standards. However, zoning standards will likely
change periodically, new development can render backland unusable and land protection efforts
can effectively preclude development on certain properties. To achieve this amount of new
growth, land will have to be used efficiently and care must be taken to insure that the traffic
generated by such growth does not overwhelm the capacity of the local highway network.
The Town should work to address any current or future limitations concerning its ability to
provide services required by new development, including water quantity issues. Work should be
undertaken to strengthen and expand local infrastructure including the provision of water, sewer,
transportation, and telecommunications services as local businesses need and request, and to do
so in a way that will most protect and preserve the Town’s environmental resources and open
space.
Home Occupations
Auburn’s existing zoning scheme currently allows a variety of home occupations. It is a trend of
our modern-day economy that more people are establishing home businesses and/or working
from their homes. Increased numbers of people spend a good deal of their workweek working
from home or “telecommuting”. The Internet and advances in home computers have created
conditions where people can be quite productive working out of their homes. According to the
2000 Census, 1.7% of Auburn residents worked at home compared to 1.15% in 1990. There are
no definitive rules or regulations that govern telecommuting and the practice is still evolving.
Auburn can expect to see an increase in the number of people working from their homes, whether
they are starting home businesses or simply telecommuting. In order to limit potential negative
impacts on residential neighborhoods, zoning revisions should be considered to allow home
occupations that are relatively benign and to limit or control those that may affect a
neighborhood’s peace and tranquility.
89
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
Below are Auburn’s Economic Development Goal and Objectives. The recommendations that
follow are an outline of major initiatives that are designed to help fulfill the Town of Auburn’s
Goal and Objectives over the next ten years and beyond.
GOAL
The Goal of Auburn’s Economic Strategy is to maintain fiscal stability by promoting commercial
and industrial growth that is appropriate to neighborhoods and the community in order to expand
the local tax base and increase employment opportunities for all Auburn residents, including
those with low and moderate incomes.
OBJECTIVES
1. Increase well paying employment opportunities for Auburn residents.
2. Increase the tax base by promoting commercial and industrial development that fits in with
the community.
3. Maintain a quality educational system that produces a professional and educated population
that is able to fulfill the regional economy’s emerging employment needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Create an Economic Development Advisory Committee
Currently, there is no public entity charged with promoting economic development in Auburn.
The Auburn Chamber of Commerce is the entity that performs business recruitment and
community promotion. However, the Town itself does not have an active program in place to
support economic growth. Members to be recruited should be civic-minded and possess a broad
range of business interests including attorneys, economic development planners, the Chamber of
Commerce, and of course members of the business community. The Committee could have a
modest budget to enable it to engage in promotional and recruitment activities in order to carry
out its mission. This entity could advise the Selectmen on economic and tax policy, promote high
quality development, encourage diversity of businesses, and advocate for changes to make it
easier for companies to operate successfully in Auburn. (Ed. Note: The Board of Selectmen
created an Economic Development Commission prior to the completion of the Plan.)
Such an entity would serve as a vehicle for communication, where the public and private sectors
can debate appropriate economic development policy for the Town, seek to develop a consensus,
and work to promote economic growth. An Economic Development Advisory Committee would
foster a better business climate by increasing communication between the business community
and Town government. The Committee could interact with land use boards whose decisions have
a direct impact on the desirability of the Town for business development. The Committee would
advocate for changes in policy, seek economic development grants, encourage the entire
community to support local businesses, and seek to attract new businesses to Auburn. The
Committee would also act as a liaison with state economic officials and be alert for new programs
and opportunities that the Town may wish to take advantage of. State officials would also
welcome the ability to have a designated board to contact when companies are seeking sites in the
region, or when new programs are available that may be suited to Auburn companies.
(Responsible Entity: Board of Selectmen)
90
2. Develop the Town’s Grant Writing Capacity
Auburn is eligible for a wide variety of federal and state grant programs, many of which serve to
enhance economic development in a community. For example, the Ready Resource Fund, which
is part of the Community Development Block Grant Program, can be used to fund technical
assistance to small businesses, infrastructure repair or construction to support economic growth,
and acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of buildings as long as the project benefits low
and moderate income persons and/or eliminates or prevents slums and blight.
Applying for grants can be a time consuming endeavor that requires a great deal of research and
narrative writing. While the Town has received some very beneficial grants in the past, the Town
could access even more money that is available by utilizing the grant writing services of the
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC). CMRPC grant writing services
include identifying and helping to select the best opportunities, conducting research and data
collection, writing and editing with Town feedback, and delivering proposals. After a community
has been awarded a grant, CMRPC will continue with technical, fiscal, and general administration
to assure compliance with state/federal requirements, complete quarterly reporting, and handle
most of the paperwork involved.
Another option for the Town is to contract with a professional grant writer on an as-needed basis.
There are numerous private sector planning consultants that would be happy to work with Auburn
on a specific grant application. If funding permits, the Town could eventually hire a professional
grant writer to develop the Town’s grant writing capacity in-house. (Responsible Entity: Board of
Selectmen)
3. Promote Industrial Growth
As indicated in the economic assessment, Auburn’s commercial tax base is almost 3 times higher
than its industrial tax base and the two combined provide a total of almost 40% of the Town’s
entire tax base, which is substantially higher than surrounding communities. This has resulted in a
number of advantages to the Town including a lower residential tax burden. However, Auburn’s
median household income, and median family income are lower than most of its neighboring
communities perhaps due to the extraordinary large number of retail jobs in Auburn generated by
the mall and other retail stores. The Town should make every effort to retain commercial
businesses by maintaining a strong liaison with local entrepreneurs and responding to their needs.
Simultaneously, the Town should make a deliberate attempt to increase the development of
industry for a more balanced tax base. Additional industrial development could also help to
produce higher paying jobs for all Auburn residents including those who currently have low and
moderate-incomes. Since the Auburn Chamber of Commerce is an important economic
development entity that performs business recruitment and community promotion in Auburn, they
would be a key player in any economic development effort. An Economic Development
Committee could also be a catalyst to help identify suitable land, and analyze Auburn’s zoning
bylaws in an effort to attract industry. The Town may wish to target smaller industrial companies
that are more easily attracted to Auburn.
One way to encourage more industrial development is to establish an incubator facility. One of
the strengths of Central Massachusetts is its preponderance of “knowledge-based” workers. The
region has a wealth of highly skilled scientists, computer experts, engineers, and technicians.
With a large concentration of companies in innovative technologies, new product development is
a constant occurrence and can lead to rapid employment gains. Incubators can provide an
inexpensive option for entrepreneurs with a new idea and limited resources. By providing low
cost space and sharing of essential services, start-up costs can be kept to a minimum, allowing
companies to focus energies on product development. In the long run, it is hoped that a few
91
successful businesses will expand and seek an alternative location in the Town or region. An
incubator should offer high-speed bandwidth, video conferencing equipment, training classrooms,
and the like. Although properties suitable for this purpose are scarce in Auburn, the Town should
consider an incubator facility if such an opportunity presents itself. (Responsible Entity: Proposed
Economic Development Commission in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce)
4. Address Any Current or Future Limitations Concerning the Town’s Ability to Provide
Services Required by New Development:
Water quantity issues could be considered the single most important impediment to future
economic development in Auburn. The ability to tie into a municipal water system is one of the
key elements that new businesses and industries look for when deciding where to locate (in
addition to easy highway access and a skilled labor force). Not only should the Town enforce
building controls in watershed and wetland areas and continue to pursue additional water
supplies, but the Auburn Water District needs to become a partner in the Town’s overall strategy
to attract new economic development and be able to provide clear direction and assistance to new
businesses and industries wishing to locate in Auburn.
Work should be undertaken to strengthen and expand local infrastructure such as the provision of
water, sewer, transportation, and telecommunications services as local businesses need and
request, and to do so in a way that will most protect and preserve the Town’s environmental
resources and neighborhoods. In particular, the Town should consider completing the extension
of sewers along Route 20 to provide opportunity for office and light industrial development. As
previously indicated, Auburn’s commercial tax base is almost three times higher than its
industrial tax base and the median household income and median family income are lower than
most neighboring communities. Promoting office and light industrial development along Route
20 would help to create a more balanced tax base with better paying jobs for Auburn residents.
As indicated in the economic assessment, Auburn has a moderate amount of vacant, developable
commercial/industrial land (roughly 404 acres in 2000). As property is developed, traffic
congestion will also increase. To insure that growth can continue to occur without severe traffic
problems, Auburn should undertake a town-wide traffic study to identify options for major
transportation routes and participate in regional transportation initiatives. In most cases,
CMRPC’s transportation staff plans major transportation projects and encourages communities to
participate. As developable land becomes scarcer, the Town will need to increasingly focus on
redevelopment opportunities. (Responsible Entity: Proposed Economic Development Commission
in conjunction with other Municipal Departments and Boards)
5. Marketing and Outreach Efforts
Marketing and Outreach Efforts are essential components of an economic development strategy.
Efforts should be directed at preparing marketing materials that highlight the advantages of doing
business in Auburn, especially its accessibility, and demonstrate any specific parcels that might
be available for development. Local commercial realtors are often willing to provide such
materials to prospective clients in their own efforts to help businesses find suitable quarters.
Included among the marketing tools the Town should pursue are:
Developing and maintaining a database of existing properties and linking with other
databases. The database should be searchable by parcel size, availability of water and sewer,
proximity to major highway, easements in place, and any other information that a potential
buyer may find useful. Providing information to and linking with site search databases of
other entities that promote economic development would be very useful to potential
businesses. It would also further illustrate that Auburn is business-friendly and willing to
92
provide resources in support of new industrial development. Other databases include the
Mass. Alliance for Economic Development (MAED) and the Worcester Regional Chamber of
Commerce. (Responsible Entity: Proposed Economic Development Commission)
Preparing a marketing packet for distribution to companies seeking to expand or re-locate that
highlights the strengths of Auburn and the region of which it is a part. Economic
development marketing efforts should focus on the many advantages of doing business in
Auburn, especially its excellent transportation access that include the Massachusetts
Turnpike, Route 20, and Interstate 290/395. Marketing efforts should also indicate that
Auburn serves as a regional economic center, especially for retail and consumer services, and
offers job opportunities for workers of all skill levels including opportunities for low and
moderate-income groups. Given the fact that new hotels will be developed in Auburn in the
future, the Town might also want to consider targeting the hospitality industry including
conference facilities, restaurants, etc. in its marketing efforts. (Responsible Entity: Proposed
Economic Development Commission in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce)
Maintaining a strong working relationship with the Worcester Regional Chamber of
Commerce and the Auburn Chamber of Commerce. Both Chambers are a valuable
information resource for local businesses and for businesses considering locating to Auburn,
offering business planning assistance, capital planning assistance, networking opportunities,
and educational seminars. In addition, the Chambers provide a forum for business
owners/operators to talk about the local business climate and economic development in
general. (Responsible Entity: Proposed Economic Development Commission)
Continuing to develop the Town web site, encourage its use, and link with other websites that
promote economic development. The Town could also make application materials available
on-line to facilitate business approvals. (Responsible Entity: Proposed Economic
Development Commission)
6. Continue Workforce Education Efforts
Workforce development is one instance where the Town alone cannot solve a larger regional
problem; nonetheless, each community can and should do its part to insure that there is an
adequate supply of educated and trained workers to meet the needs of business and industry. All
employers need access to a skilled and enterprising labor force. Even with the state’s superior
higher education system, the specialization of many highly technical industries in Central
Massachusetts requires that the workforce be educated to meet diverse needs. Training programs
are coordinated through Workforce Central, the region’s Workforce Investment Board, which
provides a “one-stop” access point to employment and training information. Active participation
by local officials in such affairs can make members aware of training opportunities that may be
invaluable for local companies. The Town should work with other organizations to identify labor
needs of local businesses and develop work force and training opportunities in those areas to
insure that a trained cadre of workers is readily available.
The Mass. Division of Career Services currently manages the Workforce Training Fund, which
offers grants to employers for worker training. Grants of up to $250,000, with a dollar for dollar
match, are awarded to small and medium-sized companies to provide training in a wide variety of
areas. Manufacturing firms are particularly targeted to provide training on the operation of new,
high tech equipment intended to improve manufacturing efficiencies. Financed entirely by Mass.
Employers, $18 million is available each year, with several funding rounds held annually.
Technical assistance grants are also available to industry associations, labor organizations,
colleges, and other entities with technical expertise to assist employers. In the past, Auburn
businesses have utilized these funds. Local employers should remain aware of this and similar
93
resources to assist companies in staying profitable in a highly competitive environment. In
addition, colleges could work with area employers to tailor a technical training program to meet
an unforeseen need.
Locally, Auburn schools should be an important player in addressing the needs of Auburn
employers. The business community should be surveyed to identify training and education needs
of their companies and whether or not high school graduates have the skills needed by area
companies. If the survey points out areas where improvement is needed, appropriate adjustments
can be considered. Basic math, good writing skills, and a solid foundation in computer
applications are needed in almost any entry-level position today. Employers have a right to expect
that new hires possess these skills in order to minimize on-the-job training. Employers can also
assist the schools in this regard by offering internships to students and getting involved in the
classroom with discussions of business operations and skills needed in the work place.
7. Remain Active in Regional and State Economic Development Planning
Auburn’s economic outlook is closely tied to that of the state and to that of its neighboring
communities. The Town should monitor regional economic trends and work with other
communities on strategies that offer promise for growth. Many aspects of economic development
require cooperation on a regional level, and communities working together can insure that the
region receives its fair share of state and federal economic development assistance. As a member
community in a large economic region, Auburn could take a leadership role in directing economic
development efforts; the Town can and should become a more active player in regional economic
affairs. The Town’s economy cannot be viewed in isolation from that of the region. Therefore, the
Town should participate in regional initiatives to insure that the region’s economy stays strong
and responds to fluctuations in the state and national economies. In addition, regional and state
economic development organizations have identified key sectors for Central Massachusetts where
we have a competitive advantage (biotechnology, medical instruments, software, etc.). By
actively participating, the Town will be made aware of these opportunities and can develop
strategies accordingly. There are several State-sponsored and regional economic development
programs to which Auburn has access. The following are just two examples of existing regional
programs that might be of interest to the Town.
•
Greater Worcester Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee
(CEDS): The Greater Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Central Massachusetts
Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC), and the Worcester City Manager’s Executive
Office of Economic Development staff the CEDS Committee. Benefits of participating
include networking with other members, learning of potential economic opportunities,
lending the Town’s voice for initiatives of a regional nature to insure its needs are
recognized, helping to formulate regional economic policy, learning of state and federal
programs and funding opportunities, and keeping the Town and Region eligible for state and
federal grants. The Committee generally meets four to five times annually to discuss ongoing economic planning and development projects, to update the prior year’s CEDS Project
List and prepare a current Project List, and to evaluate the CEDS process and goals.
•
MassDevelopment: MassDevelopment acts as the State’s industrial financing authority. It
works primarily with industries and non-profit organizations; however, it does offer several
programs that provide technical assistance to municipalities. The agency administers the
Predevelopment Assistance Program that can help municipalities fund projects that will result
in economic benefits to the community and the region. MassDevelopment can help with sitespecific projects and can assist with appraisals, financing, site planning and architectural
services. Under its Economic Development Lending program, MassDevelopment can also
94
assist with the planning and financing of industrial parks. The agency has a regional office in
Worcester to serve Central Massachusetts.
8. Amend the Site Plan Approval By-law
Site Plan Approval establishes criteria for the layout, scale, appearance, safety, and environmental
impacts of larger scale projects in an attempt to “fit” larger projects into the community by
focusing on parking, traffic, drainage, signage, screening, lighting, and other aspects of the
proposal to arrive at the best possible design for the location. Standards should clearly state the
community’s desires for high quality development but should not restrict creativity, variety or
innovation on behalf of the applicant. Site plan design standards can provide guidance for both
the applicant and Planning Board to better promote improvements related to safety, aesthetics,
and environmental condition of neighborhoods and the community. Amendments could include
standards for landscaping, pedestrian amenities, traffic access and egress, ground water
preservation, the placement of utility lines underground, and building placement. (Responsible
Entity: Planning Board)
95
Map 8
Economic Development Suitability Map
96
CHAPTER 6:
OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 2
EVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Geology, Soils and Topography
Geology: The most recent US Geological Survey’s surficial geology maps constitute Auburn’s
primary source of geologic information. MassGIS (the State GIS data center) further digitally
enhanced these maps in 1992. The USGS surficial geology maps indicate that Auburn is
underlain by five basic geologic formations:
•
West Auburn (the area west of the railroad tracks from Deadhorse Hill to Prospect Hill)
is underlain with Ayer Granite (Triassic – late carboniferous or post carboniferous
igneous rocks) from the Cenozoic period.
•
Oakdale Quartzite (Carboniferous sedimentary rocks) from the Paleozoic period appears
as a strip underlying Stoneville Pond, Stoneville Reservoir and Dark Brook Reservoir.
•
Worcester Phyllite (Carboniferous sedimentary rocks) from the Paleozoic period appears
in north Auburn between Stoneville Pond and Leesville Pond, extending to the middle of
Town.
•
Oxford Schist (Carboniferous sedimentary rocks) from the Paleozoic period appears in
north Auburn underneath Leesville Pond, extending to the middle of Town.
•
The remaining area (essentially all of east Auburn) is underlain with Gneisses and Schists
of undetermined age.
Soils: According to the 1992 report, Soil Survey of Worcester County, Massachusetts – Southern
Part, prepared by the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Auburn’s soil
properties can be generalized into five major categories. A description of these soil categories and
their locations in Auburn is provided below and a depiction of their location can be found on Map
9 (Soils Map) on the following page.
2
•
Paxton-Woodbridge-Ridgebury Soils: Nearly level to steep, very deep, well drained to
poorly drained soils on glaciated uplands. This soil type consists of soils on upland hills
and ridges dissected by many small drainage ways. Stones cover more than 3% of the
surface in most areas. The soils were formed in glacial till derived from schist, gneiss,
and granite. In Auburn, this soils type is scattered throughout Town with large
concentrations in the vicinity of Prospect Hill, the northeast corner of Town and along the
Auburn/Millbury line.
•
Canton-Montauk-Scituate Soils: Nearly level to steep, very deep, well-drained soils on
glaciated uplands. This soil type consists of soils located on upland hills and rolling
glacial till flats. It is dissected by broad drainage-ways that flatten out on the lower
slopes. Stones cover more than 3% of the surface in most areas. The soils were formed in
friable glacial till. In Auburn, this soil category appears around Tinker Hill, north and
east of Deadhorse Hill, as a large concentration east of Stoneville Reservoir and as a large
concentration northeast of Eddy Pond.
Excerpts from the “2006 Open Space and Recreation Plan”, by the Auburn Master Plan Committee.
Open Space and Recreation
97
Map 9
General Soils Map
98
•
Chatfield-Hollis Soils: Gently sloping to steep, moderately deep and shallow, welldrained and somewhat excessively drained soils on glaciated uplands. This soil type
consists of soils on hills and ridges that have bedrock exposures throughout. Stones cover
more than 3% of the surface in most areas. The soils were formed in glacial till. In
Auburn, this soil category is scattered throughout Town with no significant large
concentrations.
•
Merrimac-Hinckley-Windsor Soils: Nearly level to steep, very deep, excessively drained
and somewhat excessively drained soils on outwash plains. This soil type consists of soils
located on broad, flat plains and in rolling to steep areas throughout the southern portion
of Central Massachusetts. The soils were formed in water-sorted deposits of glacial
outwash. This is Auburn’s largest soil category, appearing as a large swath running northto-south from Leesville Pond, along either side of Dunns Brook, along either side of
Eddy Pond, all the way to the Auburn/Oxford line.
•
Freetown-Swansea-Saco Soils: Nearly level, very deep, very poorly drained soils on
uplands, outwash plains and floodplains. This soil type consists of soils on broad flats
that have small depressions. These soils are in old glacial lakes or small ponds adjacent to
streams. The soil formed in organic deposits and alluvium. In Auburn, this soil type is
scattered throughout Town with no significant large concentrations.
The distribution of soil types in Auburn follows a pattern typical of glacial landscapes. Glacial till
soils are found on the uplands, generally above 500 to 600 feet in elevation, and glacial outwash
plains and eskers are found in the valleys at lower elevations. The Town’s soils are typically very
deep, and have a sandy loam texture.
Much of the Town was at one time covered with soil types considered to be prime farmland by
the US Department of Agriculture. “The soils qualities, growing season and moisture supply are
those needed to sustain high yields of crops in an economic manner. Prime farmlands produce the
highest yields with minimal inputs of energy and economic resources, and farming it results in the
least damage to the environment. A recent trend in land use has been the loss of prime farmland
to industrial and urban uses. The loss of prime farmland to other uses puts pressure on marginal
lands elsewhere.”
Topography: Auburn’s topography ranges from a high of 876 feet above sea level (Crowl Hill)
to a low of 403 feet above sea level in the vicinity of Eddy Pond. Prospect Hill (867), Deadhorse
Hill (827 feet) and Tinker Hill (728 feet) are also prominent hills within Town. It should be noted
that Deadhorse Hill was the highest hill in Auburn at the turn of the last century, but years of sand
and gravel removal has resulted in leveling off the mountaintop.
Landscape Character
The Town of Auburn is located in the State’s central upland known as the Worcester Plateau. The
land area surrounding Auburn is dominated by ridge-tops that have an average elevation of 1,100
feet above sea level, although none of Auburn’s hills exceed 900 feet in height. Auburn is
relatively hilly with many slopes greater than 8-10%. The hilly topography adds scenic beauty to
the Town and enhances the quality of its recreational areas. Extensive tracts of forest and sparse
development of the Town’s peripheral hills provide scenic vistas from many locations in Auburn.
Development of these wooded slopes would alter the aesthetic character of the Town.
99
Water Resources
There are several large man-made reservoirs and ponds spread throughout Auburn. None of the
reservoirs are used as drinking water sources, opening the possibility for greater recreational use.
The Auburn Water District does own a significant amount of land surrounding Dark Brook
Reservoir and the new West Street wellfield will be located on this land, although the reservoir
itself is not considered a water supply source.
Public use of Auburn’s water bodies is hampered by several problems. Urban development has
enveloped most of Stoneville, Leesville, and Pondville Ponds. Eddy Pond is accessible from the
State boat launch and at Camp Gleason, but public access to Stoneville and Dark Brook
Reservoirs is inadequate. With the new wellfield about to go on-line at Dark Brook Reservoir, it
is unlikely the reservoir and surrounding properties will be opened up to public use anytime soon.
Due to access issues, fishing in Auburn is limited to Eddy Pond. With the closure of the beaches
at Stoneville Reservoir (Rotary Beach) and Camp Gleason, there are no public swimming
facilities in the Town. The Auburn Recreation Committee would like to reopen Rotary Beach and
establish a summer swim program. This will not happen until a new round of water quality testing
at the reservoir indicates that it is safe for public swimming.
The vast majority of Auburn (roughly 80% of the Town’s land area) falls within the Kettle Brook
basin, a tributary of the Blackstone River watershed. A small section of south Auburn falls within
the French River watershed. A small section of east Auburn falls within the upper reaches of the
main stem of the Blackstone River basin, and a very small section of north Auburn falls within
the Middle River basin, also tributary to the Blackstone. A graphic depiction of Auburn’s water
resources can be found on Map 10 (Water Resources Map) on the following page.
Flood Hazard Areas: The Federal Emergency Management Agency‘s (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map for Auburn depicts the Town’s flood prone areas. Auburn, with its relatively steep
slopes and drainage characteristics, has well-defined flood prone areas, totaling 1,223 acres of
100-year flood zones. The abundance of wetland areas provides large amounts of natural storage,
thus reducing flood dangers downstream. The Town’s Floodplain Overlay District provides
adequate protection for the 100-year flood zones, as the bylaw language is consistent with FEMA
standards.
Wetlands: Wetlands comprise numerous types of environments such as marshes, wet meadows,
ponds, bogs and swamps. They help to maintain water supplies, purify polluted waters, diminish
the destructive power of flood and storm water, nurture wildlife and provide numerous
recreational opportunities. According to National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) within the US Fish
& Wildlife Service, Auburn has significantly more wetlands (595 acres) than the wetlands
identified through the MassGIS land use mapping effort (127 acres). This discrepancy is due in
large part to the NWI’s more expansive definition of what constitutes a wetland. New
development is a threat to Auburn’s wetland resources, which once lost are difficult to replace.
The Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) within the Mass. Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife has not certified any vernal pools in Auburn at this time, although local
conservationists believe there are many vernal pools scattered throughout the community. In fact,
local conservationists have identified 64 potential vernal pools in Auburn. The necessary
documentation was submitted in 2005 for one pool located in the vicinity of Pondville Pond.
100
Map 10
Water Resource Map
101
Vernal pools are unique wildlife habitats best known for the amphibians and invertebrate animals
that use them to breed. Vernal pools, also known as ephemeral pools, autumn pools and
temporary woodland ponds, typically fill with water in the autumn or winter due to rising
groundwater and rainfall and remain ponded through the spring and into summer. Vernal pools
dry completely by the middle or end of summer each year, or at least every few years. Occasional
drying prevents fish from establishing permanent populations. Many amphibian and invertebrate
species rely on a breeding habitat that is free of fish predators. Some vernal pools are protected in
Massachusetts under the Wetlands Protection Act regulations as well as several other federal and
state regulations. The Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program (NHESP) serves the
important role of officially “certifying” vernal pools that are documented locally.
Vegetation
The Town of Auburn, although considered urbanized, still retains several extensive areas of
forestland within its boundaries. These forested lands serve as wildlife habitats, buffer zones,
screenings, noise absorbers, air purifiers, water quality protectors, temperature moderators,
aesthetic attractions, recreation sites, as well as offering commercial forest products. It is in the
best interest of the community to strive to maintain forested lands in a healthy condition. By
planning for future demands and stresses, and by studying in depth proposals that could adversely
affect the various amenities of the forest, Auburn can utilize its resources without losing or
destroying them for future generations.
The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) is the State
entity charged with tracking rare, threatened and endangered plant species within the
Commonwealth. The most recent inventory of the NHESP lists four plant species of concern in
Auburn:
Table 46
Endangered Plant Species in Auburn
Taxonomic
Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Rank
Most Recent
Observation
Vascular Plant
Conioselinum
chinense
Hemlock Parsley
SC
Vascular Plant
Ranunculus
pensylvanicus
Bristly Buttercup
T
1989
Vascular Plant
Rhododendron
maximum
Great Laurel
T
1999
Vascular Plant
Waldsteinia
fragarioides
Barren Strawberry
SC
1833
1918
State: E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SC=Special Concern, WL=Unofficial watch list.
Fisheries and Wildlife
Generally, it is difficult to associate a suburban community with significant wildlife populations.
However, Auburn’s business and residential areas are surrounded by acres of sparsely developed
woodlands. Game wildlife populations that inhabit these areas include grouse, woodcock, deer,
102
rabbit, hare, fox, raccoon and ring-neck pheasant. In addition to these species, there are numerous
amphibians, reptilian and avian non-game species that reside here.
Auburn has a declining wildlife population resulting from continual losses of habitat. Long-term
protection of wildlife populations can only be achieved if habitat is preserved. The value of
isolated pockets of habitat can be improved through the creation of significant wildlife corridors.
The most recent listing of the NHESP shows the following species existing in Auburn:
Table 47
Endangered Animal Species in Auburn
Taxonomic
Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State Rank
Reptile
Clemmys guttata
Spotted Turtle
Reptile
Clemmys insculpta
Wood Turtle
SC
1990
Reptile
Terrapene carolina
Eastern Box Turtle
SC
1989
Mussel
Alasmidonta
undulata
Triangle Floater
SC
1999
Hessel's Hairstreak
SC
2001
Butterfly/Moth Callophrys hesseli
SC
Most Recent
Observation
2001
State: E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SC=Special Concern, WL=Unofficial watch list.
Scenic Resources and Unique Environments
Scenic Landscapes: There are no areas of Auburn listed in the Massachusetts Landscape
Inventory as significant landscape features on the State level. Scenic resources of local interest
include Prospect Hill and the remaining open space on Pakachoag Hill. Neither site is protected in
perpetuity.
Major Characteristics or Unusual Geologic Features: Auburn’s highest elevation is Crowl
Hill, which reaches 876 feet above sea level. Approximately 30 percent of the Town’s land area
consists of slopes greater than 15%. The geologic features that define the Town’s landscape
character are its prominent hills and its surface water features. Granger Cliffs, located on the
southeast slope of Prospect Hill, is one of the Town’s more prominent geologic features.
Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Features: The National Register of Historic Places
currently lists three sites in Auburn of historical significance: the Goddard rocket launch site near
Pakachoag Hill (this site has also been designated as an Historic Landmark), the Tuttle
Schoolhouse on South Street (home of the Auburn Historical Museum), and the Joseph Stone
House on Stone Street. Auburn’s Historical Commission has taken the lead in adding properties
to the National Register and continues to do so. There are four other sites in Auburn that are
eligible for the National Register: the old High School building on Auburn Street, and the Town
Hall, Merriam Public Library and the Doctor Greene House – all located on Central Street.
In addition to the National Register listings, the Historical Commission has filed an inventory of
over 200 Auburn properties with the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Being part of the
State inventory of historic sites does not result in the permanent protection for these properties. In
103
fact, Auburn has seen many of its historic properties torn down, sold or modified in a manner not
in keeping with the building’s historic character.
The Commission is also pursuing inclusion of Auburn in the John H. Chaffee Blackstone River
Valley National Heritage Corridor. The Commission has researched and documented most of the
required information to make the Town eligible. Like a National Register listing, membership in
the Blackstone Corridor is helpful for grant eligibility for building and environmental restoration,
maintenance and improvements.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): The Mass. Department of Conservation
and Recreation lists no Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within Auburn.
Core Habitat Areas: In addition to the scenic and unique environments discussed above, it
should be noted that Auburn contains land identified by the NHESP as a “Core Habitat” for
aquatic, plant and wildlife species. In 2001, with funding from the EOEA, the NHESP developed
a BioMap for the entire Commonwealth in order to identify the areas most in need of protection
to ensure native biodiversity. The BioMap identified Core Habitat areas based on verified data
that corresponds to actual locations on the ground. The areas mapped were determined by
biologists to be those most suitable to support viable plant and wildlife species. In Auburn, a Core
Habitat area appears as a swath of land in south Auburn around Eddy Pond and a large wetland
area along the Auburn/Oxford line. Areas defined as “supporting” Core Habitat areas can be
found in south Auburn (on either side of Eddy Pond) and west Auburn (Dark Brook Reservoir
and the land to the west of it).
A graphic depiction of the Town’s scenic resources and unique environment can be found on
Map 11 (Scenic Resources and Unique Environments Map).
Environmental Problems
Environmental contamination can pose a threat to both natural resources and recreation facilities.
By identifying potential sources of contamination and dealing with them prior to their discharge
to a surface water body, the Town can protect the quality of its water resources. At present, the
State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) lists Auburn as having two active National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The first permit is for the Town’s
various water treatment plants, and the second permit is a general town-wide permit for the EPAmandated Phase II Stormwater Management Program.
DEP also maintains a list of “brownfield” sites for every Massachusetts community. Brownfields
can range from toxic waste and disposal sites to locations of chemical and oil spills. The most
current DEP listing for Auburn contains 192 brownfield listings. Although the number is
alarming, there are often multiple listings per site. The Mass Turnpike is one particular site where
quite a few chemical spills have occurred. A full listing of Auburn’s Brownfield sites can be
found in Appendix C of the Open Space and Recreation Plan.
Accidental chemical spills are a very real danger for Auburn due in part to the presence of the
interstates. The Town only has to look back to 1998 when a diesel fuel spill temporarily shut
down one of the Town’s well fields for a significant amount of time; the Town had to buy water
from the City of Worcester to cover its drinking water needs. The use of deicing salts also creates
contamination problems for the Auburn Water District. The cost to build and maintain the
desalinization plant has been considerable.
104
Map 11
Scenic Resources and Unique Environments Map
105
Stormwater runoff from paved surfaces also contains numerous toxic chemicals as a result of
routine use. In many areas runoff from roads is channeled directly into the Town’s surface water
features, even within the Town’s aquifer recharge areas. Methods for the collection and treatment
of stormwater drainage from road right of ways could be investigated.
Contamination of surface water and aquifers also occurs from non-point sources in areas of
residential and agricultural use. Very little of Auburn’s land is used for agriculture, but residential
uses cover much of the Town. Individual septic systems are a potential source of groundwater
contamination. Title V regulations work to reduce the impact of this problem, but the
concentration of new residential development within the sewer district is desirable.
The primary non-point source of pollution from residential use is lawn care products. The
fertilizers and pesticides used in lawn maintenance contribute significant quantities of nitrogen,
phosphate and toxins to surface and ground waters. The excess nutrients accelerate eutrophication
of Auburn’s ponds and reservoirs, and in high enough concentration can be toxic in drinking
water. Measures to increase public awareness of this problem, coupled with the promotion of
alternative methods for residential landscaping could reduce the use of lawn care chemicals. In
the face of the dominant social paradigm that an expansive, dark green, weed free lawn is the
hallmark of a solid citizen, and the persuasive advertising of chemical manufacturers; changing
public perceptions will not be an easy task. In the west, however, where water resource issues are
more urgent and more obvious to the public, communities have initiated successful programs to
encourage ecologically sensitive methods of landscaping. These programs could be used as
models and adapted to the circumstances of Auburn’s specific environmental problems and native
vegetative cover types.
Auburn’s capped landfill could potentially be used for recreation purposes, and in fact the site is
already being used for recreation, albeit without official Town sanction. All-terrain vehicles
(ATVs) currently use the landfill property, and in several instances have caused damage to the
landfill’s cap. There have been some preliminary discussions about creating hiking/walking trails
on the landfill site, but due to economic factors as well as the issue of policing the site, action has
not yet been taken. There are no active landfills in Auburn. The Town contracts with an
independent hauler for curbside recycling.
No formal inventory of erosion, sedimentation, or chronic flooding problems has been conducted
but local officials are aware that sections of Brook Street and Rockland Road are subject to
flooding during severe rain events.
INVENTORY OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION LANDS
Table 48 inventories all public and private recreation and conservation lands. The open space
map shows the location of properties under some manner of protection, both permanently
protected lands (e.g. Conservation Commission parcels) and lands under limited protection
(Chapter properties). Lands under limited protection are vulnerable to development or change of
use. Thus, wetlands although protected by federal, state and local laws are still vulnerable to the
effects of development. The locations of Auburn’s protected lands can be found on the Open
Space Inventory Map (Map 12).
Please note that there are numerous Town-owned properties that have not been assigned to any
particular municipal entity for management. The vast majority of these properties are tax-title
properties (taken by the Town for lack of paying taxes). Auburn has acquired over sixty such
106
properties in the last five years alone. These properties are not considered permanently protected.
As can been seen from Map 12, the majority of the tax-title properties are very small (most under
an acre in size) and are unsuitable for use as active recreation areas or open space. The only
Town-owned properties considered protected in perpetuity are those under the jurisdiction of the
Conservation Commission. The Auburn Water District owns a significant amount of property, but
only the portions of parcels that fall within the well field contribution areas are considered
protected in perpetuity; thus, these properties are considered partially protected.
The State of Massachusetts owns very few properties in Auburn, and most of their landholdings
are associated with the highway system and are under the jurisdiction of the Turnpike Authority.
The federal government does not own any land in Auburn.
A number of properties under private ownership are enrolled in the State’s tax abatement
programs, which provide for a lower tax rate as long as the land is preserved as farmland and/or
forestland. “Chapter” properties are considered to have “limited protection” because they can be
pulled out of the tax program and developed after paying a penalty. It should be noted that the
Town has the right-of-first-refusal when Chapter properties are withdrawn from the tax program.
This means that Auburn has the first option to purchase properties before they are sold and
developed. In actual practice, the Town usually has a difficult time in marshalling the necessary
resources to purchase such properties in the time allotted. The Town needs to improve its
notification procedures for when Chapter properties are withdrawn from the tax program so that
interested municipal entities and private land protection organizations can work with Town
officials to exercise the right-of-first-refusal in a timely manner. It should be noted that the Town
successfully exercised its right-of-first-refusal in 1987 to acquire the Pakachoag Meadows
property from the Post and Cutting families.
In terms of active recreation facilities in Auburn, the Town maintains the following facilities:
•
Lemansky Field: This recently completed facility contains a regulation baseball field, a
softball field, a combination soccer/football field, concession stand, bathroom facilities,
skateboard park, six tennis courts, two basketball courts, a playground, and a track that
encircles a combination soccer/football field.
•
Eddy Pond Boat Launch: The Town owns and maintains a boat launch on the eastern side
of Eddy Pond. The State Fish & Game Department stocks Eddy Pond with fish.
•
Old Landfill Site: This town-owned site contains roughly two miles of trails for allterrain vehicles (ATVs). A private ATV association is responsible for maintaining the
trails on this site.
The Athletic Director for the Auburn School Department is responsible for scheduling the use of
school recreation facilities, with school-sponsored activities having priority over private
recreation groups. The Auburn Parks Department is responsible for scheduling the use of townowned recreation facilities. In practice, scheduling the use of recreation facilities is a joint venture
of the Recreation Committee, Parks Department and the School Department.
The Auburn Parks Department is responsible for maintaining all of Auburn’s recreation facilities,
both town-owned facilities and those associated with the schools. Planning for new facilities is a
joint venture of the Recreation Committee, Parks Department and the School Department. The
Town does not have any recent planning documents regarding new recreation facilities; rather,
107
Auburn is still making use of the 1999 Parks Department Strategic Plan. In terms of new
recreation facilities being planned in Auburn, the following facilities are in process.
•
Pakachoag Meadows: The Town has plans to utilize 20 acres of the Pakachoag Meadows
site to construct two or three Little League and softball fields, a combination
soccer/lacrosse field, a bandstand, restrooms and a parking area. The Town is currently
surveying the property and preparing site development cost figures.
•
New High School: Located on the same site of the old high school, the new high school
will contain a wide array of recreation facilities including a 20,000 square-foot
gymnasium with an indoor walking track and a partition that will allow the gym to be
divided into two areas for concurrent recreation activities, a new football field, new
baseball and softball fields, a combination soccer/field hockey field, basketball courts,
and a playground (the existing playground will be replaced as part of the new high school
construction process).
•
Potential Swimming Program for Rotary Beach: It is expected that the soon-to-be hired
recreation director will establish a summer swim program for Rotary Beach.
108
Table 48
Inventory of Conservation and Recreation Lands
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Managing Agency
Zoning
Level of Protection
RA
None
RA
None
Town of Auburn
Map 1, Lot 66
12 Pakachoag St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
Map 1, No. 78
Jerome Ave
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
Map 2, Lot 5
Cemetery Road
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 3, Lot 56
Burnett Street
Outbuildings
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 4, Lot 116
2 Dixon Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 5, Lot 14
Leesville Pond
Land underneath the Pond
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 5, No. 27
Shore Dr
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 5, Lot 112
Rockaway Rd.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 5, Lot 145
Franklin St.
Other municipal
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 5, Lot 189
1 Sumner St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 5, Lot 239
Oxford Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 6, Lot 48
Carpenter Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 6, Lot 49
Carpenter Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 6, Lot 157
20 Elmwood St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
HB
None
Map 6, Lot 167
60 Southbridge St.
Land around Leesville. Pond
Town of Auburn
GI
None
Map 8, Lot 8
Fuller Street
Vacant land, land-locked
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 8, Lot 9
Auburn Terrace
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 9, Lot 40
Auburn Terrace
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Map 9, Lot 52
Cemetery Road
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RR
None
109
Sewer Dept.
Sewer Dept.
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Map 9, Lot 53
Moody Street
Map 9, Lot 54
Cemetery Road
Map 9, No 57
Zoning
Level of Protection
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Lavin St
Vacant Land
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Map 9, No. 82
95 Burnett St
Outbuildings
Town of Auburn
RB
None
Map 10, No. 31
134 Boyce St
Boyce St. School Site
Town of Auburn
Parks Dept
RA
None
Map 10, No. 68
3 Vinal St
Julia Bancroft School
Town of Auburn
School Dept
RR
None
Map 11, No. 39
Rockland Rd
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
Conservation
RA
Perpetuity
Map 12, No. 13
12 Upland St
Pakachoag Park parking area
Town of Auburn
Historical Commissions
RA
Perpetuity
Map 12, No. 149
Sword St
Leesville Pond
Auburn Con. Corn.
Conservation Commission
IND
Perpetuity
Map 12, No. 152
Sword St
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
IND
None
Map 12, Lot 163
70 Elmwood St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Mapl3, No. 30
l5 Upland St
Pakachoag Park Golf Course and
Goddard Landmark
Town of Auburn
RA
Perpetuity
Map 16, No. 20
Burnett St
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RB
None
Map 16, No. 26
Mama Vista Dr
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RB
None
Map 17, No. 209
Rochdale St
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
Perpetuity
Map 17, No. 210
Rochdale St
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
Perpetuity
Map 18, Lot 9
Southbridge St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
HB
None
Map l8, No. 16
Perry Pl
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 18, No. 22
6 Perry Pl
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 19, No. 1
Pakachoag St
Pakachoag Meadows
Town of Auburn
RB
None
Map 19, Lot 112
Pakachoag St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RB
None
Map 19, No. 115
Pakachoag St
Senior Citizens Center
Town of Auburn
RA
None
110
Managing Agency
Conservation/Historical
Commissions
Land Bank Committee
Tax ID
Location
Description
Zoning
Level of Protection
Map l9, No. 118
Pakachoag St
Parcel adjoining
Church
Pakachoag
Town of Auburn
RA
None -encroachment
Map 19, No. 120
Pakachoag St
1
R.O.W. from Pakachoag St. to
Pakachoag Church
Town of Auburn
RA
None –encroachment
Map 19, No. 121
Pakachoag St
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None –encroachment
Map 19, Lot 128
Goddard Dr.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RB
None
Map 21, Lot 10
Leicester St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Map 22, No. 7
195 Rochdale St
Rotary Beach
Town of Auburn
Parks Dept.
RB
Map 22, No. 15
Rochdale St.
Rotary Beach (parking area)
Town of Auburn
Parks Dept.
RB
Map 22, No. 19
Drake St.
Open land
Town of Auburn
RR
Perpetuity
Map 24, No. 3
Perry St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 24, Lot 57
3 White Oak Lane
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 24, No. 60
Eastford Rd.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 25, No. 26
Southbridge St.
Next to Southbridge St. Ct.
Town of Auburn
LB
None
Map 25, Lot 50
90 Auburn Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
LB
None
Map 25, No. 70
15 Holstrom Ct
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
LB
None
Map 26, No. 1
Pakachoag St.
Grace
Cutting
(Pakachoag Hill)
RB
None
Map 26, No. 2
Bancroft St.
Pakachoag Hill
Town of Auburn
RB
Perpetuity
Map 26, No. 62
Goddard Dr. (off)
R.O.W. to 26/001 & 002
Town of Auburn
Highway Dept.
RB
Perpetuity
Map 27, No. 16
Pakachoag St.
Sewage Disposal Site
Town of Auburn
RR
Perpetuity
Map 28, No. 48
Hawthorn St
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
Sewer Dept.
RR
None
Map 29, No. 1
355 Rochdale St
Landfill (closed)
Town of Auburn
Public Works
RC
Map 29, No. 2
Old Rochdale St
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RC
Ownership
Parcel
Managing Agency
Highway Dept.
Sewer Dept.
Town of Auburn
111
Perpetuity
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Map 30, No. 26
Rochdale St
Vacant land
Map 30, No. 27
Rochdale St
Map 30, No. 40
Zoning
Level of Protection
Town of Auburn
RC
None
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RC
None
339Rochdale St
Landfill (closed)
Town of Auburn
Map 32, Lot 17
Swanson Road
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
LB
None
Map 32, No. 19
46 Vine St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 32, No. 20
Swanson Rd.
Auburn Middle School
Town of Auburn
School Dept./ Parks Dept.
RA
None
Map 32, No. 51
129 Bryn Mawr Ave.
Bryn Mawr School
Town of Auburn
School Dept./
RC
None
Map 32, No. 115
Bryn Mawr Ave.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 32, No. 177
Vine St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 32, No. 178
Vine St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 32, No. 179
Vine St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 33, Lot 78
53 Auburn Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
LB
None
Map 33, No. 80
99 Auburn St
High School Memorial Field
Town of Auburn
School Dept./ Parks Dept.
LB
None
Map 33, No. 88
369 Southbridge St.
Auburn Pond, Goddard Park,
Fire Station, Library
Town of Auburn
Parks/Fire/
way
Library/High-
LB
None
Map 33, No. 89
Auburn St
Auburn Pond, Goddard Park,
Fire Station, Library
Town of Auburn
Parks/Fire/
way
Library/High-
HB
None
Map 35, Lot 2
Laurel Lane
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RC
None
Map 38, No. 5
295 Leicester St
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RC
Perpetuity
Map 40, No. 55
Oxford St
Auburn Recreation Complex
Town of Auburn
Parks Dept.
AO
None
Map 40, No. 76
416 Oxford St
Police Station
Town of Auburn
Police Dept.
AO
None
Map 40, Lot 87
Oxford Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 41, No. 4
65 Central St
Hillside Cemetery
Town of Auburn
RA
Perpetuity
112
Managing Agency
Public Works
Cemetery commission
RR
Tax ID
Location
Map 41, No. 10
5 Millbury St
Map 41, No. 12
Central St
Ramshorn Brook
Town of Auburn
Map 41, No. 16
Central St
Slope & wet area next to I-90
Town of Auburn
Highway Dept.
RA
Map 41, No. 99
Millbury St
Ramshorn Brook
Town of Auburn
RA
Perpetuity
Map 41, Lot 101
Kellogg St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
GI
None
Map 41, Lot 113
Millbury St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
GI
None
Map 47, No. 54
299 Bryn Mawr Ave
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 48, No. 119
Oxford St (off)
Fragment behind 48/118
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 49, Lot 2
Washington St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
GI
None
Map 49, No. 35
41 South St
Annex
Town of Auburn
School Dept.
RA
None
Map 49, No. 116
104 Central St
Town Hall/Mary
School
Town of Auburn
School Dept.
RA
None
Map 49, No. 128
132 Central St
Center Cemetery
Town of Auburn
Cemetery Commission
RA
Perpetuity
Map 50, No. 30
35 Mill St
Pondville Dam
Town of Auburn
IND
None
Map 50, No. 37
Pondville Pond
Pondville Dam
Town of Auburn
RC
Perpetuity
Map 51, No. 1
Hawthorn St. (off)
Utility easements on Millbury
line
Town of Auburn
RC
None
Map 51, Lot 12
Old Common Rd.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RC
None
Map 53, No. 5
12 Lawrence St.
Intermittent stream
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Map 54, Lot 48
Dark Brook Res.
Dark Brook Reservoir
Town of Auburn
No zoning
Perpetuity
Map 54, No. 56
Warren Rd
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 56, No. 12
Paul St
Wooded area within suburban
block
Town of Auburn
RA
Map 56, No. 54
Andrea Ave. ext.
Intermittent stream in R.O.W.
Town of Auburn
RA
Description
D.
Stone
Ownership
Managing Agency
Zoning
Town of Auburn
Highway Dept.
IND
113
Level of Protection
RA
None
Tax ID
Location
Description
Map 56, No. 61
Loring St
Forested
wetland
suburban block
Map 56, Lot 92
Meadow Street
Map 56, No. 108
Ownership
within
Managing Agency
Zoning
Level of Protection
Town of Auburn
RA
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Meadow St
Wooded area adjoining I-395
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 56, No. 109
Meadow St
Wooded area adjoining I-395
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 56, No. 152
Southbridge St
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
HB
None
Map 58, No. 12
Riverside Dr
Pondville Pond access
Town of Auburn
RC
Perpetuity
Map 58, No. 13
Riverside Dr
Pondville Pond access
Town of Auburn
RC
Perpetuity
Map 58, No. 43
Riverside Dr
Narrow wooded strip
Town of Auburn
RC
None
Map 60, No. 58
5-7 West St
Randall School
Town of Auburn
RA
None
Map 60, No. 61
768 Southbridge St.
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
HB
None
Map 61, Lot 1
775 Washington St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
IDA
None
Map 61, No. 42
698 Southbridge St
West Auburn Cemetery
Town of Auburn
HB
Perpetuity
Map 61, No. 52
715 Southbridge St.
Abandoned lot at Prospect St.
Town of Auburn
HB
None
Map 62, No. 4
Washington St
Eddy Pond
Town of Auburn
HB
Perpetuity
Map 63, No. 15
160 South St
Adjoins to State lands on east
shore of Eddy Pond
Town of Auburn
Map 63. No. 17
South St
Adjoins to State lands on east
shore of Eddy Pond
Town of Auburn
Map 65, No. 62
Southbridge St.
Pumping Station
Map 67. No. 1
Oxford St
Map 67, Lot 2
Map 68, No. 29
Fire/School/ Parks Depts.
Cemetery Comm.
RC
RC
Perpetuity
Town of Auburn
HBA
None
Granger ledges
Town of Auburn
RB
Prospect Street
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RA
Oxford St
Pond and steep slope west of I395
Town of Auburn
RC
114
None
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Managing Agency
Zoning
Map 68. No. 34
Oxford St
Pond and forest west of I-395
Town of Auburn
RR
Map 68, No. 36
South St
Small parcel on east shore of
Eddy Pond
Town of Auburn
RC
Map 69, No. 1
Barnes St
Adjoins Water District parcels
on Stone Brook
Town of Auburn
Map 74, Lot 30
30 Cedar Street
Vacant land
Map 74, No. 38
730 Oxford St
Map 74, No. 59
Level of Protection
RR
Perpetuity
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Granger ledges
Town of Auburn
RC
Cedar St
Marsh south of Eddy Pond
Town of Auburn
RC
Perpetuity
Map 75, No. 8
Barnes St
Gilbert Stockwell Property
Town of Auburn
RC
Perpetuity
Map 75, No. 16
South St
Vernal pool at Cedar St,
Town of Auburn
Map 78, No. 3
31 Cedar St.
Access to 78/006
Town of Auburn
RR
Perpetuity
Map 78, No. 6
Cedar St
Pumping Station
Town of Auburn
RR
Perpetuity
Map 82, Lot 4
3 Old Millbury Rd.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Map 82, Lot 12
423 South St.
Vacant land
Town of Auburn
RR
None
Map 11, No. 3
Southbridge St
Leesville Pond Dam
Comm. of Mass.
I
Perpetuity
Map 20, No. 23
Washington St
Worcester
Channel
Comm. of Mass.
GB
Perpetuity
Map 25, No. 53
Walsh Ave
Vacant land
Comm. of Mass.
LB
Map 28, No. 49
101 Washington St
Worcester
Channel
Comm. of Mass.
RH
Perpetuity
Map 40, No. 100
403 Oxford St
Daniel S. Horgan Skating Rink
Comm. of Mass.
RA
Perpetuity
Map 62, No. 7
Pond Ave
Vacant land
Comm. of Mass.
RR
State Parcels
Flood
Hood
Diversion
Diversion
115
Division of
Recreation
Parks
and
RA
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Managing Agency
Zoning
Map 62, No. 8
Pond Ave
Vacant land
Comm. of Mass.
RA
Map 62, No. 17
Bordering I-395
West shore Eddy Pond
Comm. of Mass.
RC
Map 68, No. 30
Oxford St
Enclosed within 68/029
Comm. of Mass.
RC
Map 68, No. 31
Eddy Pond (portion)
West shore Eddy Pond
Comm. of Mass.
R
Map 68, No. 32
Oxford St
Adjoining 68/034
Comm. of Mass.
RC
Map 68, No. 33
Oxford St
South of entrance to Eddy Pond
boat ramp
Comm. of Mass.
RC
Map 78, No. 7
Cedar St
Forested strip west of 1-395
Comm. of Mass.
RR
Map 80, No. 3
Oxford St
Under power easement
Comm. of Mass.
RR
Level of Protection
Perpetuity
Perpetuity
Perpetuity
Transportation Authorities
Map 46, No. 1
Bryn Mawr Ave.
Vacant land
Mass. Turnpike
Mass. Turnpike
IND
Map 47, No. 73
Bryn Mawr Ave
Vacant land
Mass. Turnpike
Mass. Turnpike
RA
Map 48, No. 109
Oxford St.
Road cut at Water St underpass
Mass. Turnpike
Mass. Turnpike
RA1
None
Map 48, No. 110
Oxford St.
Road cut at Water St underpass
Mass. Turnpike
Mass. Turnpike
RA1
None
Map 53, No. 10
West St.
North shore of Dark Brook
Reservoir adjoining I-90
Mass. Turnpike
Mass. Turnpike
RR
None
Map 59, No. 10
Tinker Hill Rd
Tinker Hill forested land
Mass. Turnpike
Mass. Turnpike
RR
Auburn Housing Authority
Map 17, No. 180
200 Oxford St
Elderly apartments
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
RA
None
Map 17, No. 227
Oxford St
Low Income housing
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
RA
None
Map 18, No. 17
Perry St
Vacant land
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
RA
None
Map 25, No. 61
20 Pheasant Ct
Low income housing
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
LB
None
116
Tax ID
Location
Description
Map 26, No. 3
279 Pakachoag St
Pakachoag
Housing
Map 33, No. 43
14 Maple Dr
Group housing
Meadows
Elderly
Ownership
Managing Agency
Zoning
Level of Protection
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
RB
None
Housing Authority
Housing Authority
RA
None
Private and Not-for-Profit Lands
Map 3, Lot 47
Cemetery Road
Cemetery
Worcester Ghevra Kadisha
& Ghesed Shal Emos
& Ghesed Shal Emos
RR
Perpetuity
Map 3, Lot 50
Cemetery Road
Cemetery
& Ghesed Shal Emos
& Ghesed Shal Emos
RR
Perpetuity
Map 3, Lot 52
Cemetery Road
Cemetery
& Ghesed Shal Emos
& Ghesed Shal Emos
RR
Perpetuity
Map 3, No. 53
Cemetery Road
Cemetery
& Ghesed Shal Emos
& Ghesed Shal Emos
RR
Perpetuity
Map 5, Lot 15
Off of Webster Rd. in
Worcester
Cemetery
Swedish Cemetery Corp.
Swedish Cemetery Corp.
RB
Perpetuity
Map 20, No. 8
151 Southold Rd.
Chapter 61 (forest)
Post, Sylvia C.
RB
Limited
Map 20, No. 19
160 Southold Rd.
Chapter 61 (forest)
Post, Sylvia C. & family
RB
Limited
Map 27, No. 14
50 Washington St.
Chapter 61 (forest)
IP / RB
Limited
Map 35, No. 12
Rt. 20 (Washington St.)
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Gutting, Marjorie J.
IO
Limited
Map 36, No. 2
Rochdale St. (off)
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Bergin, Joseph
RR
Limited
Map 42, Lot 1
Millbury St.
Chapter 61 (forest) & Chapter
61-A (farm)
Post, Sylvia & Donald
RC
Limited
Map 42, Lot 2
Millbury St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Post, Donald
RC
Limited
Map 42, No. 29
147 Millbury SI.
61-A (farm)
RC
Limited
Map 42, No. 30
154 Millbury St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
RC
Limited
Map 42, No. 38
146 Millbury St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
RC
Limited
117
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Map 43, No. 15
Millbury St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Map 44, No. 3
Bridge St.
Map 44, No. 4
Managing Agency
Zoning
Level of Protection
Post, Donald G.
RC
Limited
Chapter 61 (forest)
White, Raymond Olney
RR
Limited
Bridge St.
Chapter 61 (forest)
White, Raymond Olney
RR
Limited
Map 45, Lot 6
Rochdale St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Brooks, Ronald
RR
Limited
Map 51, No. 7
Old Common Road
Chapter 61 (forest)
White, Eric
RC
Limited
Map 51, No. 10
108 Old Common Rd.
Chapter 61 (forest)
White, Eric
RC
Limited
Map 52, Lot 3
Ashworth St.
Chapter 61-B (recreation)
Century Sportsman Club
RR
Limited
Map 52, No. 8
518 Rochdale St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Keeler, William S. &
RR
Limited
Map 58, No. 53
Elm St
Auburn Sportsman’s Club
RC
Limited
Map 58, No. 54
Elm St
Auburn Sportsman’s Club
RC
Limited
Map 72, Lot 2
Kelly St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Martin Realty Co.
RR
Limited
Map 73, Lot 2
Kelly St.
61-A (farm)
Martin Realty Co.
RR
Limited
Map 76, Lot 1
Kelly St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Martin Realty Co.
RR
Limited
Map 77, Lot 1
Kelly St.
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Kelley, Phyllis
RR
Limited
Map 78, Lot 1
Land-locked
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Cody, Jamie N. Trustee
RR
Limited
Map 79, Lot 4
South Street
Chapter 61-A (farm)
Brossman, Alice
RR
Limited
Auburn Water District
Map 16, Lot 10
51 Rochdale St.
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 16, Lot 17
52 Rochdale St.
Outbuildings
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 18, No. 8
Walsh Ave
Well #5, Dunn’s Brook
Water District
Water District
GI
Partial
Map 18, No. 10
Walsh Ave
Well #4, Dunn’s Brook
Water District
Water District
IND
Partial
118
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Managing Agency
Zoning
Level of Protection
Map 18, No. 13
Colonial Rd.
Kettle Brook, Leesville Pond
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 23, Lot 57
71 Rochdale St.
Outbuildings
Water District
Water District
RB
Partial
Map 25, No. 39
Southbridge St. Ct.
“Holstrom Court” Little League,
Well field - wells #6, 6N, 6W,
Dunn’s Brook, wetlands
Water District
Water District/ Parks Dept.
LB
Partial
Map 39, Lot 8
Leicester St.
Outbuildings
Water District
RB
Partial
Map 39, Lot 10
247 Leicester St.
Vacant land
Water District
RB
Partial
Map 39, No. 30
174 Leicester St.
Water tank
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 39, No. 43
232 Bryn Mawr Ave.
Water tank access
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 39, Lot 44
202 Bryn Mawr Ave.
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 48, Lot 74
Lancaster St.
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
Map 48, No. 96
513 Southbridge St.
Water District Office, well #3,
Driving range (private by lease),
Dark Brook, wetlands
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 48, Lot 100
Church St.
Wellfield – wells #1, #2
District
District
RA
Partial
Map 48, No. 101
Church St.
Well field - wells #1, #2
Water District
Water District
RA
Partial
Map 53, Lot 4
West St.
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
IDA
Partial
Map 53, Lot 9
West Street
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RR
Partial
Map 54, Lot 48
West Street
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RR
Partial
Map 54, Lot 51
77 West Street
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RC
Partial
Map 54, No. 57
71 West St
Proposed well site
Water District
Water District
RC
Partial
Map 54, Lot 58
75 West Street
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RR
Partial
Map 59, Lot 1
Tinker Hill Road
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RR
Partial
Map 59, Lot 18
Tinker Hill Road
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RR
Partial
119
Partial
Tax ID
Location
Description
Ownership
Managing Agency
Zoning
Level of Protection
Map 60, Lot 57
West Street
Vacant land
Water District
Water District
RC
Partial
Map 60, No. 87
Appleton Rd.
Culvert inlet
Water District
Water District
HB
Partial
Map 63, No. 1
Elm St
Well field - wells #9, 10,
wetlands, forest, sand and gravel
pits
Water District
Water District
RC
Partial
Map 63, No. 2
Stone St
pits
Water District
Water District
RC
Partial
Map 63, No. 23
Stone St
pits
Water District
Water District
RC
Partial
Map 63, No. 24
Elm St
pits
Water District
Water District
RC
Partial
Map 72, No. 12
Prospect St.
Water tank
Water District
Water District
RB
Perpetuity
120
Map 12
Open Space Inventory Map
121
ANALYSIS OF NEED
The preservation of a community’s open space serves many purposes. First, the conservation of
valuable natural systems provides habitat to a vast array of endangered species. Secondly, the
hydrological networks associated with lakes, streams and underground aquifers provide storage
capacity for floodwaters, natural purification for drinking water and a source of irrigation for
fanning. Preservation of aquifers provide protection of drinking water supply As vital as these
and other natural factors associated with open space preservation may be, it is equally important
to recognize the many cultural factors associated with the preservation of important natural
resources. A network of open spaces often serves as the identifying element, which provides a
community’s recognized rural character and historic integrity. The same open space networks
provide valuable opportunities for recreation with town commons, public squares, parks, play
fields and walking paths serving as a linkage between larger parcels.
The following analysis is therefore divided into both a summary of Auburn’s Resource Protection
Needs, Community Needs and Management Needs. Specific opportunities or actions associated
with this analysis of need can be found in the sections that follow, specifically Goals and
Objectives and the Five Year Action Plan.
Summary of Resource Protection Needs
Resource protection is based upon the need to preserve existing natural and cultural resources that
are finite in quantity and otherwise irreplaceable. Wetlands, rivers, streams, aquifers, historical
resources and scenic views all encourage participation in recreation and outdoor activity.
However, once these resources are destroyed they cannot be replaced. Through public hearings,
committee meetings and workshops the following resource protection needs have been identified.
This analysis of natural resources targets those areas most in need of immediate protection,
maintenance or development to best serve the present and future inhabitants of the Town of
Auburn.
1. Encourage the protection of undeveloped open space through overlay zoning and public land
acquisition.
2. Protect the water resources for the Town, including new well locations.
3. Protect aquifer recharge zones and surface water bodies and their water quality particularly
Dark Brook and Stoneville Reservoirs and Pondville Pond.
4. Protect streams, wetlands and vernal pools.
5. Encourage the continued use of farmland for agricultural purposes.
6. Prevent the ecological isolation of conservation lands.
7. Increase public awareness of the importance and value of wetlands.
8. Preserve parcels containing unique natural features and/or other areas of special interest.
9. Increase the level of protection afforded to critical parcels of open space.
10. Protect forested open land and habitat corridors.
11. Establish a staff position for the Town to professionally enforce wetlands protection
regulations and Conservation Commission orders, as was recommended in the 1999 Open
Space & Recreation Plan.
122
Summary of Community Needs
The last iteration of the Town’s Open Space & Recreation Plan documented a clear demand for
additional passive and active recreational facilities, and the Plan contained several
recommendations aimed at increasing passive recreational opportunities in Town – some of
which were implemented, some of which were not. The 1999 Auburn Parks Department Master
Plan hoped to address the shortfall of active recreation sites through the development of a multiuse recreation plan for the Pakachoag Meadows site. The Town is currently surveying the
property and preparing site development cost figures and plans to break ground in 2006 after
obtaining the appropriate permits.
Once on-line, the Pakachoag facility will certainly alleviate some of the demand for recreation
playing fields and lessen the over-use of existing fields. However, additional recreation sites will
be needed as Auburn’s population continues to grow. It is therefore recommended that the Parks
Commission undertake an update of the 1999 Parks Department strategic planning document
during the next five years. When preparing the update, the Commission should consider using the
Level-of-Service (or LOS) guidelines for planning new active recreation facilities, as
recommended by the National Recreation and Parks Association and the American Academy for
Park and Recreation Administration. These two entities have jointly prepared a set of guidelines
for the local provision of open space and recreation facilities that is based on an LOS analysis.
The LOS is a ratio expressed as acres-per-1,000 population, which represents the minimum
amount of ground space needed to meet real time recreation demands of the local citizens. The
LOS planning concept for active recreation facilities includes both the land needed for the actual
facilities, but also ancillary land for parking, restrooms, walkways, etc. The LOS concept is used
for mini-parks (typically associated with a single development), neighborhood parks, community
parks and athletic complexes, but not for nature preserves, historic district parks or greenways.
There is no one LOS standard that is applicable to every community; rather, each community
should calculate its own LOS using the following formula:
•
Determine the park classifications for which the LOS will apply.
•
Determine the recreation activity menu for each park classification. The menu will be a
list of all the recreation facilities intended to go into each park classification and for
which a specific amount of space will be needed. The menu determines the facilities
space requirements for the LOS formula.
•
Determine the open space size standards for each park classification for which the LOS
standards will apply.
•
Determine the present supply of these recreation activity choices.
•
Determine the expressed demand for these recreation activity choices (usually done
through surveys of the populace).
•
Determine the minimum population service requirements for these recreation activity
choices.
•
Determine the individual LOS for each park classification.
•
Determine the collective LOS for the entire park and recreation system.
In terms of open space, such land cannot and should not be equated with a numerical standard of
any kind. Such an approach would be both impractical and counterproductive. There is no
123
number of acres of floodplain or wetlands that every community should have in order to meet a
national standard. Rather, a community should, through a strategic planning process, develop
open space policies that reflect the unique resources of the community.
Management Needs, Potential Change of Use
Identification of funding and staffing resources will be key elements of the Town’s strategy for
open space acquisition and upgrading recreation facilities. Toward that end, a partial listing of
funding mechanisms and programs can be found in Appendix A of this document. In regard to
potential changes of use, several of the properties identified for protection on the Action Plan
Map are in the State’s Chapter program and their permanent protection would technically
constitute a change of use.
One of the most significant management needs for the Town’s active recreation areas is ensuring
that all facilities are handicapped accessible. All of Auburn’s recreation facilities have been
evaluated for handicapped accessibility and the results of this evaluation can be found in
Appendix B of the Open Space and Recreation Plan.
The Town will need to prioritize its open space needs on an on-going basis. Communities
acquiring land for open space, recreation and conservation purposes frequently attempt to devise
a method to compare or prioritize land for acquisition. These systems often list locations of
threatened or endangered plant or animal species as among the highest priority land to buy or
protect. Also usually highly ranked is water supply protection land. Agricultural land, particularly
productive land, ranks high as does keeping open land undeveloped in more densely settled areas
without open space at present. Land that connects existing open space areas or creates buffers
between sensitive natural resources may rank high as well. It is proposed that land for acquisition
should either protect present or future water supplies, sensitive natural resource areas, provide
public access to natural resources, connect existing open space land, or provide recreational
facilities or amenities, particularly in settled areas. Land that achieves more than one of these
objectives would be highly ranked.
OPEN SPACE GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Form the Community Goals and Community Needs sections discussed above, and input gleaned
from various public forums and meetings with other municipal entities, the Master Plan
Committee has developed the following Goals and Objectives for the preservation and
improvement of Auburn’s open space and recreation resources.
Goal #1:
To protect the Town’s water resources for the purposes of drinking water supply and recreation,
considering both water quality and quantity, with a particular emphasis on the Town’s wellfields
and their recharge areas and water bodies that may have recreation potential, and to raise public
awareness regarding the importance of Auburn’s water resources.
Objectives:
1. Ensure that Auburn does not grow faster than its ability to supply municipal water service to
new development.
2. Establish the position of Conservation Agent to enforce environmental quality regulations.
124
3. Investigate potential funding sources for the purpose of land acquisition.
4. Increase the level of protection afforded to wells, aquifers and watersheds.
Goal #2:
To expand and improve existing open space and recreational resources and facilities to meet the
Town’s anticipated recreational needs for the benefit of all segments of Auburn’s population.
Objectives:
1. Improve existing recreational facilities per the Parks Department Master Plan.
2. Provide a wider variety of recreational activities for people of all abilities, including
expanded opportunities for hiking, biking, swimming, canoeing, fishing and bird watching.
3. Develop trails for both passive and active recreational use while precluding the use of trails
for motorized vehicles.
4. Continue developing a multi-use recreation plan for the Grace Cutting Park property.
5. Continue developing a multi-use recreation plan for the Pakachoag Meadows property.
6. Improve accessibility of existing public open spaces to all segments of the community,
including the establishment of access easements, parking facilities and trail systems.
7. Protect and/or acquire surface water bodies that have the potential to provide recreation
opportunities such as summer swim programs for children and young adults, with Camp
Gleason and Rotary Beach being the top priorities.
Goal #3:
To continue the protection of valuable open space and sensitive environmental areas and the
acquisition of undeveloped open space land for conservation.
Objectives:
1. Prevent ecological isolation of conservation lands through the acquisition of connecting
corridors.
2. Preserve the old growth forest in the vicinity of Town-owned property on Prospect Street.
3. Increase the level of protection afforded to critical parcels of open space.
4. Identify and preserve vernal pools and other unique and/or special features in Town.
5. Encourage the continued use of farmland for agriculture and acquire or preserve those lands
whenever possible.
6. Plan for the acquisition of private lands that have open space value to the Town as they
become available, particularly Chapter 61 properties.
7. Investigate the possibility of establishing a local land trust for Auburn.
Goal #4:
To work to preserve Auburn’s historic buildings and sites for the future enjoyment of its citizens
and to maintain a link to the Town’s past.
125
Objectives:
1. Investigate the possibility of creating a Historic District for the Town Center area.
2. Compile a prioritized inventory of historic buildings and sites in Auburn that are worthy of
permanent protection.
3. Educate the citizenry about Auburn’s historic buildings and sites.
Goal #5:
To increase public awareness of the merits of open space preservation and conservation,
particularly the benefits accrued for future generations.
Objectives:
1. Work with area land trusts to develop information on conservation and estate planning for
large landholders, the tax implications of preserving open space for all Auburn tax payers and
the importance of preserving sensitive environmental areas for the purpose of educating
school-age children.
2. Work with the Town’s Library and school system to disseminate information of natural
resource preservation and conservation.
3. Provide information to new residents regarding the Town’s various resources (open space
lands, recreation resources and historic buildings and sites).
FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
It is important to note that successful implementation of these strategies is contingent upon
sufficient availability of funding and staffing levels in the appropriate department, board or
commission assumed to be responsible for each individual strategy. Likewise, projected
timeframes may need to change depending upon the availability of funding and staffing. A
graphic depiction of the Town’s Five-Year Action Plan can be seen on Map 13, Action Plan Map.
Goal #1 - To protect the Town’s water resources for the purposes of drinking water supply and
recreation, considering both water quality and quantity, with a particular emphasis on the Town’s
well fields and their recharge areas and water bodies that may have recreation potential and to
raise public awareness regarding the importance of Auburn’s water resources.
Objective
Year
Responsible Party
Prepare a plan to address the water quality problems of
Leesville Pond
1
Leesville Pond Assoc.
& Town Admin.
Repair the dam at Leesville Pond
1
Leesville Pond Assoc.
& Town Admin.
Seek funding to repair the dam at Auburn Pond
1
Town Administrator
Investigate options for increased enforcement of the
Town’s stormwater management regulations
1
Town Engineer &
Town Administrator
Establish a municipal Conservation Agent position
1
Conservation Comm.
126
Goal #2 - To Expand and improve existing open space and recreational resources and facilities
to meet the Town’s anticipated recreational needs for the benefit of all segments of Auburn’s
population.
Objective
Year
Responsible Party
Expand the soccer complex at Randall School
1
Parks Comm.
Install new fencing for soccer field at the Middle School
1
Parks Comm.
Rubberize the track at Lemansky Park
2
Parks Comm.
Construct multi-use recreation facility at Pakachoag
Meadows, including a walking trail
2&3
Parks Comm.
Complete construction of recreation facilities at the new
High School.
1&2
School Dept.
Investigate the possibility of establishing a swimming
program at Rotary Beach
3
Recreation Comm.
Prepare a recreation plan for the closed landfill
5
Parks Comm.
Establish a local trails committee to assist with the planning
and on-going maintenance of all town-owned trail systems
1
Board of Selectmen
Year
Responsible Party
Objective
Rehabilitate the trail system within Town-owned property
at Eddy Pond and connect to the Town-owned property on
the other side of Cedar Street
2
Conservation Comm. &
New Trails Comm.
Rehabilitate and extend the trail network within the Gilbert
Stockwell property
2
Conservation Comm. &
New Trails Comm.
Update the Parks Department strategic planning document
and include a level-of-service (LOS) analysis
5
Parks Comm.
Goal #3 - To continue the protection of valuable open space and sensitive environmental areas,
including the acquisition of undeveloped open space land for conservation.
Objective
Year
Responsible Party
Adopt the Community Preservation Act (CPA) for the
purpose of acquiring open space, protecting historic
resources and providing affordable housing and establish a
CPA Committee to oversee the program’s implementation
2
Master Plan
Committee
Establish a local land trust to assist with open space
acquisitions and serve as a local Land Bank
1
Board of Selectmen
Target open space acquisitions for West Auburn,
specifically around Crowl Hill, Tinker Hill, Prospect Hill
and Deadhorse Hill
Ongoing
127
Conservation
Commission
Work with the Board of Selectmen to formalize a
notification process for the Town’s right-of-first-refusal in
regards to the acquisition of Chapter lands about to be sold
for development.
1
Board of Selectmen,
Conservation
Commission &
Assessors
Create a protection plan for the town-owned old growth
forest off of Prospect Street
1
Conservation
Commission
Arrange an annual meeting with the Board of Assessors and
Board of Selectmen to discuss the use of tax title properties,
either for permanent protection (conservation) or for use as
active recreation sites
1
Board of Selectmen,
Conservation
Commission, Parks
Dept. & Assessors
Update the Town’s Open Space & Recreation Plan
5
Natural Resource
Planning Comm.
Investigate options for protecting the historic Martin
Brothers Piggery at the Oxford Town line
4
Board of Selectmen
Goal #4 - To work to preserve Auburn’s historic buildings and sites for the future enjoyment of
its citizens and to maintain a link to the Town’s past.
Objective
Year
Responsible Party
Pursue National Register recognition for the old High
School building, the Town Hall, Merriam Building and the
Doctor Greene House
Ongoing
Historical Comm.
Continue pursuing Auburn’s inclusion in the Blackstone
Valley National Heritage Corridor
Ongoing
Historical Comm.
Goal #5 - To increase public awareness of the merits of open space preservation and
conservation, particularly the benefits accrued for future generations.
Objective
Year
Responsible Party
Develop a strategy for disseminating information regarding
farmland and forestland preservation
Ongoing
Natural Resource
Planning Comm.
Collaborate with local and area land trusts to disseminate
information to large landholders on estate planning options
and the tax advantages of donating land, easements, or
restrictions to the Town or a non-profit organization
Ongoing
Board of Selectmen,
Town Admin. & CPA
Comm.
Continue dialogue and partnerships with the state, federal
and non-profit open space entities
Ongoing
Board of Selectmen &
Town Admin.
For the benefit of new residents and visitors, publicize the
Town’s recreation facilities, historic sites, open spaces and
trail systems in a brochure available at the Town Hall
1
128
Parks, Conservation,
Youth, & Historical
Commissions
Map 13
Open Space Action Plan Map
129
CHAPTER 7:
TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
Auburn’s 1987 Master Plan indicated that two major regional highway infrastructure
improvements would significantly affect vehicular movement into and through the Town of
Auburn. As such, efforts at that time were to be focused on local circulation issues.
“There is increasing concern that local roads are at or over capacity, and that “bleeding” into
residential areas will increase. This concern can be readily understood; when non-arterial
streets become commuter roads, “neighboring” patterns are disrupted. Yet to plan for major
corrections at this juncture would be premature due to the fact that the impact of the I-395
extension is still unclear, and there is the strong possibility that there will be a new exit off
the Turnpike at Millbury – thus potentially shifting traffic off of Route 20. As well, much of
the commercially zoned uses along Route 20 and Route 12 are underutilized, and could be
dramatically expanded.” 3
The Plan then identified policies to ensure the maintenance of the local roadway network, to
coordinate with MassHighway to optimize intersection operations, to control the location and
design of residential and business driveways and entrances along major roads, and to monitor the
effect of a new Massachusetts Turnpike interchange in Millbury.
The Millbury interchange at Route 146 and Route 20 was completed in 1999, but the overall
effect on traffic flow within the Town of Auburn is still unclear. Today’s traffic congestion issues
have accelerated from 1987 conditions as the Auburn Mall and the adjacent Route 12 corridor
became a major regional retail and employment destination – likely a result of the improved
access to the area provided by the completion of I-395. Auburn, like Worcester and Sturbridge,
has become a major crossroads of interstate highways (I-90, I-290, I-395) and US Route 20. As a
result, the traffic issues have become more intense on the major roads, and traffic has continued
to “bleed” into neighborhoods adjacent to the retail and service hub along Route 12. In addition,
Auburn’s traditionally rural, windy back roads are carrying more local traffic as residential
development moves outward from the center, especially on the west side of town. These roads are
also carrying more regional traffic as travelers seek alternate routes to the major roads that have
attracted so many businesses, a trend that is expected to be further exasperated by the actions
taking place in neighboring towns, such as the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley in Millbury, the
Reserve at Ashworth Hill (a 350-unit subdivision, proposed off of Route 20 on the
Auburn/Oxford town line), and a super-Wal-Mart on Route 9 in Leicester.
As in 1987, transportation is one of the most significant issues facing the Town of Auburn today.
In fact, in Master Plan interviews, both the Highway Superintendent and Police Chief identified
the increase in traffic and congestion as the key issue that the Master Plan should address.
The transportation inventory in this Plan collects the information needed to develop goals and
policies aimed at maximizing the ability to move within and through the community. Today’s
transportation issues in Auburn are more complex than traffic congestion alone. Based upon
current transportation data and discussions with the Master Planning Committee, Town staff, and
the Traffic Advisory Committee, the following list summarizes the items that should be addressed
over the next 20 years:
3
A Revised Master Plan for Auburn, Auburn Master Plan Revision Committee, 1987.
Transportation
130
The interchange system in the center of Auburn can be viewed as the catalyst for Auburn’s
economic development since it brings people into town, but it is equally as functional as a
means to leave town and access employment and services elsewhere. In fact, changes in the
commute patterns of Auburn residents indicate increasing reliance on the interstate system as
more workers are traveling to places like Boston and Westborough, while the number of
Auburn residents working in Auburn and Worcester is decreasing. Also, since each of the
interstate highways (I-90, I-290, and I-395) was built separately, the interchange developed
into a sprawling mass of ramps that divides the community at its center. The structure, with
its outdated design, is the site of numerous traffic back-ups and truck turnovers.
Route 20 is a critical regional highway with significant development potential that could be
detrimental to mobility. Traffic flow data indicates a strong commute pattern with heavy
eastbound flows in the morning and comparable westbound volumes during the evening. The
roadway currently provides decent mobility, but considerable delays have been observed at
Prospect Street, Millbury Street, and between Appleton Road and Route 12. In addition, the
Transportation Inventory, utilizing historical crash data and input from the Auburn Police
Department, identifies the entire corridor as a High Crash Corridor.
Auburn is a regional employment destination and retail and service center. Optimal traffic
flow within commercial areas is needed in order to maintain Auburn’s economic vitality and
minimize cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. Currently, safe and efficient vehicular
movement is hampered by congestion at intersections, numerous curb cuts, and vehicle
crashes, especially along Route 12 and Auburn Street. In addition, commercial areas in
Auburn are heavily dependent on the personal automobile, as evidenced by the incomplete
and/or inadequately maintained sidewalk network, not enough safe pedestrian crossing areas,
lack of buffer between heavy traffic volumes and pedestrians, expansive and visually
obtrusive parking lots, significant distances of buildings from the road and between each
other, and limited transit service.
Many collector roads in Auburn are experiencing increased traffic volumes, which lead to a
variety of issues that need to be addressed as follows:
•
Millbury Street, which is designated as scenic east of Route 20, is the most direct path to
the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley in Millbury. The resulting increase in traffic volumes is
impacting residents, forcing the need for extra snow removal and de-icing during winter
months, and driving the need to upgrade the roadway.
•
Oxford Street North and Heard Street provide regional access between the I-290 Hope
Avenue interchange and western Worcester and Leicester. Mobility in this part of the
region has been studied as part of many Access-to-Worcester-Airport studies, but a
feasible solution has yet to be developed.
•
The Auburn Industrial Park on Sword Street generates noticeable traffic to the west on
Boyce Street as an alternative to the Route 12/Southbridge Street entrance. Many I-290
westbound trucks have been observed exiting at Hope Avenue and, without the option of
turning left to get to Route 12, instead head west and traverse Hope Avenue, Webster
Street, and Boyce Street to access the industrial park.
•
Collectors on the west side of town are being stressed from increasing residential
development and regional cut-through traffic. As a result, the use of the roadway network
is increasing over a wider area, rather than the more traditional use of major roads,
stressing the road system and the ability for police and fire to serve the community.
Transportation
131
Communities whose streets, sidewalks, and roadside landscaping are interesting to look at
and are maintained in visually acceptable condition are generally perceived as impressive.
Increased development and inadequate funding have limited the ability of the Auburn
Highway Department to maintain the highway infrastructure at an optimal level of quality. A
1997 Pavement Management Study identified the need for about $1 million annually to
maintain the roadway network in “fair” condition. Not even accounting for inflation, the
existing budget is about one-half of that needed. Also notable, that study only evaluated and
analyzed the paved surface and did not take into consideration the need to address roadside
amenities during roadway rehabilitation and reconstruction.
The highest proportion of vehicle crashes (35-43%) in Auburn occurred along Route 12
(Southbridge Street) between 2002 and 2004. Route 20 (Washington Street), which carries
about twice as many cars and trucks on a typical day, was the site of 15-22% of vehicle
crashes in Auburn in those three years. The next highest incidence of vehicle crashes
occurred along Oxford Street North and Auburn Street. Nearly half of these vehicle crashes
occurred along road segments, while the percentage of those occurring at driveways increased
slightly. As part of a later study of signalized intersections along Route 20, it was determined
that the greatest number of vehicle crashes between 2003 and 2005 occurred at the
intersections of Route 20 with Millbury Street and Route 20 with Prospect Street.
There is an incomplete network of adequately maintained sidewalks and safe crossing areas
within walking distance of Auburn’s neighborhood Elementary Schools. This issue is
especially evident at the Julia Bancroft School and Pakachoag School.
The existing fixed-route and paratransit services available within Auburn are currently only
addressing the needs of a limited portion of the population. Fixed-route service to and from
the Auburn Mall is well utilized, as is the demand-response service provided through the
Auburn Council on Aging. However, there are few, if any, transportation options for other
residents who do not drive. An expansion of service to enhance mobility within the
community is needed.
INVENTORY OF TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
Evolving Travel Patterns
The majority of employed residents work in either Auburn or Worcester. However, both
communities employed fewer Auburn residents in 2000 than in 1990. In 1990, 26.2% of Auburn
employed residents worked in Auburn. In 2000, the number of Auburn residents working in their
hometown decreased to 21.6%. Places like Westborough, Boston, Millbury, Framingham, West
Boylston, and Northborough are housing more jobs for Auburn residents. Also notable, work trips
from the CMRPC region to Boston area communities inside Route 128 from 1990-2000 increased
65%, from 8,889 to 14,465. 4
4
CMRPC analysis of US Census 1990 and 2000
Transportation
132
Table 49
Major Work Destinations for Auburn Residents
Work Destination
Number
Number
Workers in Workers in
1990
2000
Change
Percent
Change
Worcester
3,337
3,048
-289
-8.7%
Auburn
2,077
1,746
-331
-15.9%
Westborough
186
311
125
67.2%
Shrewsbury
253
242
-11
-4.3%
Marlborough
209
203
-6
-2.9%
79
157
78
98.7%
Millbury
101
156
55
54.5%
Framingham
123
138
15
12.2%
West Boylston
108
130
22
20.4%
Northborough
57
77
20
35.1%
Boston
Source: US Census, 1990 and 2000
The fact that people are traveling further to their jobs is a regional, statewide, and national trend
to which Auburn is not immune. The mean travel time to work for Auburn residents increased
from 18.0 minutes in 1980 to 18.6 minutes in 1990 to 21.9 minutes in 2000. Perhaps newer
Auburn residents are moving further away from their jobs to places like Auburn for improved
quality of life at decreased cost of living. Or, perhaps longtime Auburn residents are traveling
further away to take advantage of better employment. Regardless, if this trend continues,
transportation needs may shift. Safer and more effective access to the interstate system and other
long-haul routes could become a higher priority, while the local circulation issues that were the
focus in 1987 could become more of an ongoing maintenance and management issue.
However, it is important to recognize the importance of an effective local roadway network. As
noted earlier, Auburn is a major employment destination. In 2000, Auburn businesses employed
9,964 people, up from 9,313 in 1990, and 6,000 in 1980. As shown in the following table, Auburn
businesses employed more Worcester residents in 2000 than in 1990. But the majority of Auburn
employees still live in Auburn, and they need the local roads to get to work, even if they utilize
alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, bicycles, and walking.
Transportation
133
Table 50
Major Places of Residence for Employees at Auburn Businesses
Place of Residence
Number
Number
Workers in Workers in
1990
2000
Change
Percent
Change
Worcester
1,886
2,184
298
15.8%
Auburn
2,077
1,746
-331
-15.9%
Oxford
822
561
-261
-31.8%
Webster
337
428
91
27.0%
Leicester
282
360
78
27.7%
Millbury
383
314
-69
-18.0%
Charlton
392
281
-111
-28.3%
Spencer
220
259
39
17.7%
Dudley
160
252
92
57.5%
Shrewsbury
185
214
29
15.7%
Southbridge
216
198
-18
-8.3%
Grafton
114
178
64
56.1%
Holden
104
134
30
28.8%
Thompson, CT
111
96
-15
-13.5%
47
92
45
95.7%
101
89
-12
-11.9%
65
85
20
30.8%
Douglas
101
83
-18
-17.8%
Sutton
124
82
-42
-33.9%
32
79
47
146.9%
Fitchburg
Northbridge
Sturbridge
Northborough
Source: US Census, 1990 and 2000
Between 1990 and 2000, Auburn witnessed a 6% increase in population from 15,005 to 15,901
residents. During the same period, motor vehicle registrations increased from 12,305 to 15,434 –
a 25% increase. A number of factors are often cited for this trend, including the increase in young
driver ownership and business vehicles registered in town, but the ultimate effect is that there are
more vehicles on the local road system – almost one for every resident!
Transportation
134
Table 51
Registered Motor Vehicles in Auburn
Year
Number of
Registered Vehicles
Year
Number of
Registered Vehicles
1990
12,305
1997
14,354
1991
12,300
1998
14,609
1992
12,404
1999
15,452
1993
12,502
2000
15,434
1994
13,019
2001
15,919
1995
13,027
2002
16,530
1996
13,638
2003
16,501
Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue/Division of Local Services
Traffic Volumes
There are a number of ways to evaluate traffic. The first is traffic volume counts. If one had the
ability to sit at a particular location in town and observe every vehicle passing by in a 24-hour
period, he or she would see between 11,000 and 13,000 cars on Auburn Street; as much as 16,000
on Route 12 and Oxford Street North; and as much as 32,000 on Route 20. These are significant
traffic volumes indicating the presence of both locally generated and through-travel traffic. Other
recent and historical traffic volume counts are listed in Table 52.
Functional Classification
Highway travel involves movement through a network of roads. Functional classification
determines how this travel can be guided within a road network in a logical and efficient manner
by defining the part that any particular road or street should play in serving the flow of trips
through the network. Functional classification, therefore, is the process of grouping streets and
highways according to the character of service they are intended to provide.
There are three basic functional classes: arterials, collectors, and local roads. All roads are
grouped into one of these classes, depending upon the character of the traffic and the degree of
land access that they allow. Arterials should provide the highest level of service at the greatest
speed for the longest uninterrupted distance. There is often some level of access control. Arterials
are typically used for longer through-travel between major trip generators (larger cities,
recreational areas, etc.). Collectors provide a less highly developed level of service at a lower
speed for shorter distances by collecting traffic from local roads and connecting them with
arterials. Collectors also connect smaller cities and towns with each other and to the arterials.
Local roads consist of all roads not defined as arterials or collectors and provide access to private
property or low volume public facilities. Arterials and Collectors have further sub-classifications
of “Urban” or “Rural”, and “Major” or “Minor” based on population density characteristics. The
functional classification of Auburn’s roadway network is shown on the Roadway Function Map
(Map 14).
Transportation
135
Table 52
Auburn Traffic Volumes 5
Street
Auburn Street
Location
East of Oxford Street
Auburn Street
East of Route 12 (Southbridge St)
Auburn Street
West of Route 12 (Southbridge St)
Bancroft Street
East of Pakachoag Street
Barnes Street
Millbury Town Line
Bryn Mawr Avenue
North of Oxford Street
Bryn Mawr Avenue
South of Oxford Street
Burnap Street
East of Route 12 (Southbridge St)
Central Street
South of I-90 (Mass. Turnpike)
Elm Street
South of Route 20 (Washington St)
Heard Street
@ Worcester City Line
Leicester Street
Leicester Street
Oxford Street
North of Bryn Mawr Avenue
West of Old Oxford Street
Oxford Street
North of Auburn Street
Oxford Street
South of Auburn Street
Year
1990
1999
2004
1987
2002
1987
1995
2002
1991
2002
1991
2002
1993
2002
1993
2002
1990
1993
2002
1989
1993
1999
1989
2002
1992
2003
1997
1997
1992
1997
2003
1992
1999
2002
1989
1999
2002
AADT Functional Class
10,630
Minor Arterial
10,390
12,190
11,530
Minor Arterial
10,410
15,560
Minor Arterial
15,010
12,200
1,550
Local
2,420
680
Collector
700
3,580
Collector
2,830
2,470
Collector
2,860
1,140
Local
1,450
840
4,780
Collector
5,920
6,140
2,450
Local
2,210
7,010
Collector
7,060
1,040
Collector
630
Collector
11,210
Collector
10,120
12,310
16,110
Minor Arterial
16,060
14,750
7,040
Minor Arterial
7,870
7,160
5
Average Annualized Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes were calculated using MassHighway seasonal
factors and actual counts conducted by CMRPC, with the exception of the Route 20 AADT volumes, which
were provided by MassHighway.
Transportation
136
Street
Oxford Street
Location
North of Route 12 (Southbridge St)
Oxford Street
@ Oxford Town Line
Pakachoag Street
Pinehurst Avenue
Route 12 (Southbridge St) @ Worcester City Line
Route 12 (Southbridge St) North of Auburn Street
Route 12 (Southbridge St) North of Route 20 (Washington St)
Route 20
East of Route 12
Route 20
East of South Street
Route 20
South Street
Upland Street
West of South Street
South of Central Street
Vine Street
South of Auburn Street
West Street
North of I-90 (Mass. Turnpike)
Transportation
137
Year
1987
1999
2002
1989
2002
1992
2002
1989
1997
2002
1989
1999
2002
1987
1989
2002
1988
1995
2002
1995
1998
2001
1995
1998
2001
1996
1997
1997
2003
1990
2002
1989
1995
2004
AADT
7,550
7,520
7,580
470
390
2,230
2,670
13,280
15,920
13,300
12,980
12,500
10,750
9,820
11,750
10,640
13,880
18,010
14,180
19,000
19,100
32,000
20,000
22,900
19,900
22,000
12,560
2,720
3,410
8,260
8,480
2,490
4,620
5,390
Functional Class
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial
Minor Arterial
Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial
Principal Arterial
Collector
Local
Minor Arterial
Collector
Map 14
Roadway Function Map
Transportation
138
Traffic Congestion
As stated above, Auburn is located at a major regional crossroads. The location has served the
community well in the arena of economic development. In fact, it was noted during the
Community Vision Forums that, “Auburn’s success in attracting new economic development is
principally a result of its excellent transportation access. Marketing efforts should focus on the
advantages of an Auburn location due to its ease of access and large population base within
reasonable travel time.” As a result, the major roadways serving Auburn and the surrounding
region are experiencing and will likely continue to see increasing congestion. However, at these
same forums, increasing traffic through residential areas was a common complaint. As congestion
intensifies on the major roads, traffic “bleeds” or spills over into neighborhoods. This issue was
also noted in Auburn’s 1987 Master Plan.
Congestion costs time and money for the traveling public. Although slower travel speeds tend to
decrease fatalities and serious injuries, congestion also inhibits the efficient movement of
emergency vehicles. In fact, the Auburn Police Department noted concern regarding its ability to
respond to incidents on I-290 and the Massachusetts Turnpike when traffic frequently backs up
onto neighboring highways during peak hours.
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) required urban areas
across the country to assess traffic congestion using a management system approach. Briefly, a
management system approach is one where issues are identified through a systematic process of
data collection and analysis, recommendations are developed to address the issues, solutions are
implemented, and their effectiveness is monitored. For the Central Massachusetts Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), staff at CMRPC began developing the region’s Congestion
Management System in 1994.
The first step is to identify “focus segments,” roadways where the traffic volume on the roadway
exceeds the capacity (i.e. road segments where the volume-to-capacity ratio is greater than or
equal to 1.0). Utilizing the QRS II travel demand model for base year 1990 and 2020, a number
of road segments across the region were identified as “congested” or “projected” to be congested
by 2020. In Auburn, Auburn Street between Route 12 and I-290; Route 12 between Auburn Street
and Route 20; and Route 20 throughout town were identified as “congested.” In addition, the
travel demand model projected that Oxford Street North between Auburn Street and the
Worcester City Line would be congested by 2020. Once identified, CMRPC staff proceeded to
verify and monitor the congested conditions in the field by conducting a series of travel-time-anddelay studies along roadways and turning movement counts at intersections. The data compiled
for roadways in Auburn since 1995 has been utilized in the following discussions.
Route 20
Route 20 has historically functioned as a through-route for commuters and freight. It is now
increasingly becoming the site for retail businesses and could be adversely affected by continued
development. The recently completed new interchange of Route 146 with the Massachusetts
Turnpike and Route 20 may encourage more development. The Reserve at Ashworth Hill, a 350unit development proposed at the Oxford/Auburn town line, could especially affect the mobility
and use of Route 20. It was noted at the Community Vision Forums that “sewers should be
Transportation
139
extended completely along Route 20 to provide opportunity for office and light industrial
development,” which could further accelerate development along that highway.
Past studies of Route 20 have recommended operational and safety improvements including
minimizing left turns, increasing enforcement to control speeding, minimizing lane changes and
merges by providing a consistent cross-section, improving lighting, enhancing pedestrian safety,
and increasing setback requirements to allow for potential future widening of the highway.
Currently, the required minimum setbacks along the corridor range from 30 to 40 feet.
The section of Route 20 that runs concurrent with Route 12 to the Oxford Town Line is slated for
reconstruction and is listed on the Central Massachusetts Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
2005-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The preliminary design calls for a
consistent four-lane cross-section, median-divided highway.
Travel-time and delay studies were conducted on Route 20 in 1995 and again in 1998. In both
years, speeds ranged from 35 to 45 with the exception of the section between Route 12 (easterly
junction) and Appleton Road, where observed speeds were much slower. The signalized
intersections at Prospect Street and Millbury Street were also noted to cause general delays. Slow
westbound, evening peak hour travel approaching the westerly junction with Route 12 was most
notable, although a 2004 Level-of-Service (LOS) analysis determined that LOS = B for that
approach during the PM peak period while carrying 65% of the intersection volume.
Turning movement counts conducted at intersections along Route 20 in Auburn have indicated a
heavy morning eastbound and evening westbound commute pattern as follows:
•
The intersection of Route 20 with Millbury Street was counted in 1996 and 1999. Overall, the
morning peak period intersection volume grew 0.2% per year from 1996 to 1999, while the
PM peak period volume grew by 4.2% per year. In CMRPC’s 1999 turning movement count,
Route 20 eastbound carried 45% of intersection volume during the morning peak period
(down from 48% in 1996). Similarly, westbound travel during the evening peak period
accounted for 46% of the total intersection volume in 1999 (down from 50% in 1996). So,
although the total volume of traffic traveling through the intersection increased between 1996
and 1999, especially during the evening peak period, the morning eastbound and evening
westbound commute pattern became less of the total use of the intersection.
•
The intersection of Route 20 with Prospect Street was counted in 1996 and 1998. Overall, the
morning peak period intersection volume decreased 2.6% per year, while the evening peak
period volume decreased by 7.8% per year. In 1996, the morning eastbound travel accounted
for 61% of the total intersection volume (60% in 1998), while the evening westbound travel
made up 60% (62% in 1998).
•
Route 20’s westerly junction with Route 12 was counted in 2001 and 2004. The intersection
Level-of-Service (LOS) was determined to be “B” during the morning and evening peak
periods in 2001. In 2004, the morning peak period LOS had decreased to a “C,” while the
intersection still operated at a “B” during the evening peak hour. Eastbound travel accounted
for 60% of the intersection volume in the morning in 2001 and 62% in 2004. Westbound
travel made up 64 % of the evening peak hour volume in 2001 and 65% in 2004.
•
Route 20’s easterly intersection with Route 12 was counted in 1991 and again in 2001.
Overall, the morning peak period intersection volume grew 0.1% per year, while the PM peak
period volume grew by 0.8% per year. In 2001, the LOS was “B” with morning eastbound
Transportation
140
travel making up 71% of the total intersection volume. During the evening peak period,
directional volumes were more evenly distributed.
Commercial Areas & Major Roads
The Route 12 corridor, along with Auburn Street and Swanson Road is a major retail and
employment center for Auburn and the surrounding region. Traffic generators include the Auburn
Mall, other major retail businesses, restaurants, and public schools. The community Vision Forum
report noted that “most of the opportunity for industrial and commercial growth will involve redevelopment of existing property along Routes 12 and 20” and that “there is little support for rezoning land for new commercial and industrial development. Such uses should be contained to
existing zoning districts now in effect.”
Numerous curb cuts are located along Route 12 to provide accesses to the adjacent land uses.
Both the operation of the highway and the aesthetics can be improved with access controls such
as encouraging shared driveways to minimize curb cuts and divided accesses with landscaped
traffic islands to control traffic movement. The existing zoning district along Route 12 today does
not specify these kinds of access management techniques. However, MassHighway is the
permitting authority for curb cuts. In addition, the existing zoning does not allow residential
development, restricts the height of buildings to 25 feet, and strictly requires ample parking for
every individual business.
The Veteran’s Memorial Highway designation of Route 12 and associated improvements will
provide a consistent 4-lane cross-section when completed and may better mange access at some
locations. This project is not addressing the intersections of Route 12 with the I-290 off-ramp or
Route 12 with the Massachusetts Turnpike off-ramp. Neither location has an acceleration or
merge lane.
Travel-time and delay studies were conducted on Route 12 in 1995 and again in 2003. In 1995,
southbound travel during the PM peak period was notably slow. Specifically, the Massachusetts
Turnpike ramps and the inconsistent number of travel lanes were thought to contribute to slow
travel speeds. Travel speeds were consistently slow between the southerly entrance to the Auburn
Mall (Sears Auto) and Auburn Street, likely due to the numerous curb cuts along each side of the
highway. In 2003, this section was again noted as having the slowest travel speeds, although the
cause was attributed more to the delay experienced at the signalized intersections of Route 12
with Swanson Road and Auburn Street.
The northbound approach to Auburn Street showed the worst degradation. Travel speeds in 1995
were a little over 25 mph. By 2003, speeds along that approach decreased to 15 mph during the
morning peak period (7:00-9:00 AM) and were even slightly lower during the evening peak
period (4:00-6:00 PM). Travel speeds along the northbound approach to Swanson Road were
approximately 20 mph in both years, while speeds on the southbound approach to Swanson
decreased from approximately 22 mph to 15 mph. The southbound approach to Auburn Street
was not studied in 1995.
Travel-time and delay studies were conducted on Auburn Street in 1995. The intersection of
Route 12 with Auburn Street caused significant delays for Auburn Street travel. A Level-ofService (LOS) analysis was not conducted for that location as part of the CMS since Mall
expansion plans were underway. However, the intersection of Auburn Street with Oxford Street
was counted in 1996 and again in 1999. The total volume of traffic at that intersection increased
6.8% per year during the AM peak period and 5.4% per year during the PM period. In 1996,
Transportation
141
Oxford Street southbound carried 55% of the intersection volume during AM and 46% during
PM. By 1999, the AM distribution had not changed, but the percentage of travel on Oxford Street
southbound had increased to 48%.
A travel-time and delay study was conducted on Swanson Road in 1996. The signalized
intersections were noted to cause delays, but the Auburn Mall Expansion plans (Draft EIR –
September 1993) called for signal coordination of the following intersections: Auburn
Street/Route 12; Swanson Road/Route 12; Auburn Street/Vine Street/I-290; Swanson Road/Vine
Street; Auburn Street/Swanson Road; and Auburn Street/Central Street. These intersections are
coordinated now, but have not been re-evaluated recently.
Parking lots are a dominant visual feature in Auburn’s commercial areas. These impervious
surfaces generate a number of negative impacts on the community. The visual appeal of the
roadway from a driver’s perspective suffers when the parking is consistently placed in front of
and to the side of buildings. These vast expanses of pavement rarely invite pedestrian traffic,
thereby increasing the dependence on the automobile and decreasing the use of transit, all of
which have negative air quality impacts. Also, large quantities of pavement increase storm water
runoff, which when poorly managed, can cause flooding, erosion, and increased highway
maintenance needs. In addition, Auburn’s excessive parking requirements decrease the potential
for higher density development, which is not only more transit and pedestrian friendly, but also
typically improves a community’s tax base.
The town’s parking regulations require parking lots to be paved, have adequate drainage, and
conform to detailed geometric standards for driveway, stall, and aisle dimensions. Paved parking
areas must be set back 10 feet from any lot line. There are not currently any landscaping or
buffering requirements. For commercial uses, the Zoning Bylaws prescribes the number of spaces
needed based on the square feet of development, which varies by type of use. The result is vast
amounts of pavement adjacent to every business along Auburn’s main roads.
As an alternative, Auburn should consider the following:
•
Encourage connections between adjacent properties;
•
Revise parking ratios to require fewer spaces for retail;
•
Consider developing a maximum required parking ratio;
•
Allow sharing of parking when adjacent uses have different hours of operation; and
•
Limit the placement of parking in front of buildings to minimize parking lots as the dominant
visual element.
Collector Roads
The Roadway Function Map illustrates the functional classification of Auburn’s roadway
network. The image depicts a number of collector roads that feed traffic into and out of Auburn’s
central core. Many of these roadways are experiencing traffic increases due to a variety of factors
as outlined below.
The Shoppes at Blackstone Valley in Millbury has spurred public concerns regarding significant
increases of vehicles on Millbury Street. Millbury Street is narrow and steep, which is especially
an issue during inclement weather, forcing the need for extra snow removal and de-icing attention
to be paid to that road. In addition, Millbury Street is designated as scenic east of Route 20, where
Transportation
142
it becomes McCracken Road in Millbury. To address the cut-through traffic here, alternatives
need to be explored in coordination with Millbury officials and McCracken Road residents.
Increased traffic volumes along Oxford Street North have been documented by various CMRPC
transportation planning programs. The Congestion Management System documented annual
increases in traffic volume at Oxford Street’s intersection with Auburn Street of 6.8% in the
morning and 5.4% during the evening between 1996 and 1999. The Traffic Count program
chronicled an increase of about 2500 vehicles per day from 1989 to 2003 at the Worcester City
Line, 6 which represents a 23% increase in 14 years, or approximately 1.5% per year. Much of this
traffic is thought to be cut-through traffic between the I-290 Hope Avenue interchange and
western Worcester and Leicester. Heard Street and Pinehurst Avenue are similarly affected.
Mobility in this part of the region has been studied as part of many Access-to-Worcester-Airport
studies, but a feasible solution has yet to be developed.
The Auburn Industrial Park on Sword Street generates noticeable traffic to the west on Boyce
Street as an alternative to the Route 12/Southbridge Street entrance. Many I-290 westbound
trucks have been observed exiting at Hope Avenue and, without the option of turning left to get to
Route 12, instead head west and traverse Hope Ave, Webster Street, and Boyce Street to access
the industrial park. Signage on I-290 and businesses in the Industrial Park could encourage trucks
to exit I-290 Westbound at College Square instead of Hope Avenue to access Sword Street from
Route 12.
Collectors on the west side of town, such as Leicester Street, West Street, and Rochdale Street are
being affected by the trend of new development taking place on the outer edges of Auburn and
neighboring towns. West Street and Rochdale Street provide a shorter connection between Route
20 and Route 56 in Oxford and Leicester. Combined with the trend of parents driving their
children to school more than in the past, as evident by the traffic back-ups at area school
driveways, the use of the roadway network is increasing over a wider area, rather than the more
traditional conduit of travel on major roads. This places a greater stress on the road system and
negatively affects the ability for police and fire to serve the community.
Maintaining the Transportation Infrastructure
At the Auburn Community Vision forums, residents noted that streetscape improvements,
especially along highway corridors, would greatly improve the appearance of the Town and
people’s perception of Auburn. Citizens also commented on the poor condition of sidewalks in
residential areas. The Auburn Highway Department is responsible for delivering safe, wellmaintained public roads to provide for efficient transportation in the community. It does so by
making general repairs to roadways; sweeping and plowing streets; and cleaning, repairing and
maintaining catch basins and culverts to manage storm water run-off and to eliminate localized
flooding conditions as they may occur. The implementation of the recently completed Stormwater
Management Plan, required by federal regulations, will enforce more stringent cleaning and
maintenance schedules for storm water catch basins.
Many of Auburn’s roads were built about 40 years ago as new subdivision streets. Today, those
roads are reaching the end or have surpassed their functional lifespan. New residential
developments steadily adds to the number of miles of roadway for which the Department is
responsible upon town acceptance of the streets. Most of the newer mileage occurred during the
6
Daily Traffic Volumes & Intersection Turning Movement Counts, Central Massachusetts Regional
Planning Commission, January 2005
Transportation
143
1990s, when a 15% increase took place. Recent additions have been moderate, with a 3% increase
from the turn of the century.
The majority of commercial development has and will continue to take place on the major state
highways in Town. The Auburn Highway Department is only responsible for plowing sidewalks
along Route 12. However, increased traffic resulting from commercial development shortens the
functional life of many highly traveled side streets. Also, the increase in impervious surfaces,
customary with commercial development, has increased storm water runoff, while the drainage
infrastructure has not been upgraded.
The Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission conducted a Pavement Management
Study for the Town of Auburn in 1997. The study evaluated the condition of the pavement
surface on all town-maintained roadways, and resulted in the following three scenarios:
A. If the annual roadway maintenance and repair budget is maintained at 1997 levels ($416,344),
Auburn’s roadway network will likely deteriorate from an average PCI 7 of 77 in 1997 to an
average PCI of 49 in 2007.
B. In order to maintain Auburn’s roadway network at its 1997 level of performance (PCI = 77)
through 2007, approximately $1,000,000 in annual funds should be appropriated.
C. If $1,300,000 were spent annually on roadway repair and maintenance, the condition of
Auburn’s roadway network would likely improve to an average PCI of 92 by 2007.
The Transportation Infrastructure Map (Map 15) illustrates the jurisdiction of Auburn’s roads. In
addition, “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete” bridges are depicted. These terms
are used by MassHighway to identify bridges that need repair or upgrading. The bridge just south
of the intersection of Pinehurst Avenue with Oxford Street is considered “functionally obsolete.”
It is the only town-maintained bridge. There are no town-maintained bridges that are considered
structurally deficient.
SAFETY
Vehicle Crash Information
The following tables outline the number and locations of vehicle crashes that occurred in Auburn
during the last three years. The number of crashes has been steadily declining. While the total
number has decreased, the number occurring on Southbridge Street (all of Route 12, including the
section that overlaps Route 20) has increased. Also, Auburn Street moved up to the number 3 spot
on the high crash location list, passing Oxford Street North, in 2004. Lastly, nearly half of vehicle
crashes occur along road segments, while the percentage of those occurring at driveways is
increasing slightly. These locations are illustrated on the Public Safety Map (Map 16).
7
(A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 100 indicates optimal pavement conditions, usually newly paved. A
score of 0 indicates a roadway that has failed entirely and is likely impassable for an average passenger
vehicle.)
Transportation
144
Map 15
Transportation Infrastructure Map
Transportation
145
Table 53
Vehicle Crashes in Auburn
2002
2003
2004
Total
586
576
556
1,718
4
4
2
10
Number Resulting in Injuries
187
213
171
571
Number Involving Pedestrian
2
0
0
2
Number Involving Bicyclist
0
0
0
0
Total Number of Crashes
Number Resulting in Fatalities
Table 54
Top Crash Locations in Auburn
2002
2003
2004
1. Southbridge Street
211 (36%)
202 (35%)
238 (43%)
2. Washington Street
90 (15%)
124 (22%)
99 (18%)
3. Oxford Street North
40 (7%)
48 (8%)
28 (5%) #4
4. Auburn Street
39 (7%)
37 (6%)
41 (7%) #3
Table 55
Occurrences at Different Crash Location Types
2002
2003
2004
39.0%
45.7%
45.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
17.4%
17.3%
17.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
T-Intersection
21.8%
17.4%
15.3%
Y-Intersection
4.2%
2.2%
3.8%
On Ramp
0.7%
0.7%
0.4%
Off Ramp
1.8%
2.7%
3.8%
Driveway
12.3%
13.1%
13.3%
Unknown
2.6%
0.5%
1.1%
Not at Intersection
Highway-Rail at-grade crossing
Four-way Intersection
Five-way Intersection (or more)
Transportation
146
Map 16
Public Safety Map
Transportation
147
During the spring of 2005, CMRPC surveyed police departments throughout the region to
identify roadway locations where safety improvements were needed. The Auburn Police
Department, when asked about the locations of vehicle crashes, identified the following locations
as having the greatest number of motor vehicle incidents:
Auburn Street/Oxford Street
Route 12/Swanson Road
Route 20
Route 20/Prospect Street
Route 12/I-290 EB off-ramp
In addition, the intersections of Route 12 with Route 20, Route 12 with Oxford Street, and Oxford
Street with Murray Avenue were noted to have a high number of incidents relative to the volume
of traffic. The intersection of Route 20 with Millbury Street and the Bryn Mawr Avenue
extension were two locations noted to have the most severe effects (fatalities, personal injuries,
extreme property damage, etc.).
As part of a Route 20 Corridor Profile in Auburn and Oxford, which commenced in February
2006, CMRPC researched vehicle crash information at five signalized intersections along Route
20 for the three-year period including 2003 – 2005. These intersections in Auburn included Route
20/Route 12 (easterly junction), Route 20/Prospect Street, Route 20/South Street, Route 20/Elm
Street/School Street, and Route 20/Millbury Street. The study used accident reports filed with the
Auburn Police Department.
No fatalities were reported at the five intersections within the three-year study period. Table 56
outlines the number of injuries documented at each of the intersections. The intersection of Route
20 with Millbury Street experienced the greatest number of vehicle crashes resulting in personal
injury as well as being the site with the largest total crash volume. However, the percentage of
crashes resulting in personal injury was higher at both Route 20 with Prospect Street and Route
20 with Elm and School Streets.
Table 56
Personal Injuries (2001-2004)
Auburn Intersection
Total
Number of
Crashes
Number of Crashes
Resulting in
Personal Injuries
Percent Crashes
Resulting in
Personal Injuries
Route 20/Route 12
22
4
18%
Route 20/Prospect Street
38
11
29%
Route 20/South Street
16
1
6%
Route 20/Elm St./School St.
13
4
31%
Route 20/Millbury Street
54
12
22%
At-Grade Highway/Rail Crossings
There are four at-grade highway-rail crossings in Auburn:
Transportation
148
P&W/South Street
P&W/Elm Street
Central Square (P&W/Central Street/Pakachoag Street)
P&W/Sword Street
Since 1975, there have been only four reported incidents at the Central Square crossing. No
injuries or fatalities were reported.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
Providing sidewalks and controlled crossings in areas where pedestrian activity is significant or
encouraged are common strategies to ensure safety. For bicycles, any segment of roadway having
a paved shoulder of at least 4 feet in width is generally considered appropriate.
A one-half-mile walk is typically considered walking distance, although many people feel
comfortable walking one mile or more. The Public Safety Map illustrates one-half-mile and onemile walking distances from Auburn Town Hall, the High School, the Middle School, and the
four Elementary Schools. When reviewed and discussed by the Master Plan Committee, it was
noted that there is an incomplete network of adequately maintained sidewalks and safe crossing
areas within walking distance of Auburn’s neighborhood Elementary Schools. This issue is
especially evident at the Julia Bancroft School and Pakachoag Elementary School.
TRANSIT
WRTA Fixed-Route Bus Service
The Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA), based in Worcester, provides fixed route
transit service for communities in central Massachusetts, including Auburn. There are three routes
serving Auburn as indicated in Map 17.
Route 25 comes into Auburn from Worcester on Boyce Street and terminates at the Auburn
Industrial Park. Route 25 provides 14 inbound (from Auburn to Worcester) and 13 outbound trips
on regular weekdays from 5:48 AM to 6:48 PM. On Saturdays, 6 inbound and 8 outbound trips
are available between 10:28 AM and 5:28 PM. No service is provided on Sunday.
Route 26 South enters Auburn from Worcester along Pinehurst Avenue and terminates at the
Auburn Mall. Deviations are provided to Stoneville Heights and the Filenes Basement
Distribution Center. Route 26S provides 29 inbound and 30 outbound trips on regular weekdays
from 5:30 AM to 8:30 PM. On Saturdays, 23 inbound and 23 outbound trips are available
between 6:00 AM and 8:45 PM. On Sundays, 7 inbound and 7 outbound trips are available
between 10:30 AM and 6:00 PM.
Route 42 travels from Worcester to Oxford along Route 12 through Auburn with a turn-off at the
Auburn Mall. Route 42 provides 5 inbound and 5 outbound trips on weekdays from 6:10 AM to
5:30 PM. No service is available on Saturday or Sunday.
The following table details results of on-board passenger counts between 2002 and 2004 for the
three Auburn routes. The numbers represent the number of people boarding and alighting within
the Town.
Transportation
149
Table 57
Auburn Average Weekday Bus Ridership
Route
OCT JAN FEB MAR MAY NOV FEB MAY NOV
2002 8 20036 2003 9 20036 20037 20037 20047 20047 20047
Average
25
26
-----
22
-----
18
21
16
26
30
23
26S
-----
324
340
-----
455
422
300
385
452
383
42
-----
-----
5
15
8
38
25
35
53
26
The WRTA commissioned a Comprehensive Redesign Study to address current and future
mobility needs in its service area. Urbitran Associates, Inc., a planning, engineering and
architectural firm that specializes in transit service issues, led the study team. The study produced
a five-year plan of changes to the WRTA’s fixed route transit service. The WRTA will seek
public input on the changes annually, prior to implementing each year’s recommendations. Based
upon public input and further operational analysis, the suggested improvements will likely be
refined. The following proposed changes for Auburn are depicted on the Transit Service Map
(Map 17).
Year 1 – No changes proposed will affect Auburn.
Year 2 – Route 25, which currently terminates at the Auburn Industrial Park, will instead
follow the existing routing of Route 26S from Stafford Street to a new Bryn Mawr
terminus. Route 26S will be interlined with Route 26N in Worcester and will follow the
existing Route 25 routing into Auburn on Boyce Street, through the Industrial Park to
Route 12 and continue to the Auburn Mall. Additional evening trips will be added.
Year 3 – Extend hours of Routes 25 and 26 to 10:00 PM and 1:00 AM, respectively.
Year 4 – Add community-based service (demand-response feeder service) to address trip
needs in the WRTA’s outlying communities. There is an assumption that Jobs
Access/Reverse Commute funds will be utilized to supplement WRTA revenues to
provide this coverage.
Year 5 – Add weekend service where not currently provided.
8
9
CMRPC random passenger surveys
WRTA Driver Surveys
Transportation
150
Map 17
Transit Service Map
Transportation
151
Paratransit Service
In addition to fixed route transit service, the WRTA contracts with the Auburn Council on Aging
(COA) to provide Complementary Paratransit ADA and non-ADA Demand-Response (curb to
curb) Service. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires fixed-route transit
providers to complement their system with curb-to-curb service within a three-quarter mile buffer
of their service area for individuals whose disabilities prevent them from using the fixed route
system. COA participation is a cost saving measure that helps make it possible for the WRTA to
fund paratransit service for non-ADA eligible riders who are also transit dependent (particularly
those elders and people with disabilities residing in communities where fixed route service is
either very limited or non-existent). The Auburn COA operates two WRTA vans Monday through
Friday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM primarily to provide in-town and out-of-town medical trips, as well
as in-town errands and nutrition site trips for Auburn’s elderly and disabled population.
The Auburn Council on Aging charges $1.00 for a Non-ADA trip and $2.00 for an ADA trip.
This fare structure encourages ADA riders to arrange their trips so they can be combined with
non-ADA trips. The Auburn COA provides a cost effective service whose costs average under
$5.00 per trip over the last five years as indicated in the following table.
Table 58
Auburn Council on Aging Transportation Services 10
Year
ADA Trips
Non-ADA
Trips
Total
Passenger
Trips
Net Cost/Trip
2000
1,076
6,571
7,647
$3.87
2001
303
5,943
6,246
$4.53
2002
696
6,296
6,992
$3.74
2003
848
5,264
6,112
$5.06
2004
766
4,372
5,138
$6.27
Average
738
5,689
6,427
$4.69
The WRTA is required to provide ADA Complementary paratransit service during the same
hours as its fixed-route service. Since the fixed-route service has longer hours than the Council on
Aging, some ADA trips are brokered to private providers. Also, if an ADA trip request conflicts
with a previously scheduled trip that would displace a large number of people, then the ADA trip
is brokered. When a trip is brokered, the Town of Auburn pays 25% of the cost, which can range
from $18.00 to $37.00 per trip. 11 The following table details the number and cost of brokered
trips for the Town of Auburn between 2000 and 2004.
10
Auburn Council on Aging Year-to-Date Operations Reports
WRTA Paratransit Service, CMMPO Endorsed 2003 Regional Transportation Plan, Central
Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, August 22, 2003. p. IV-38.
11
Transportation
152
Table 59
Brokered Paratransit Trips in Auburn 12
Year
Number of
Brokered
Trips
Net Cost of
Brokered
Trips
Net Cost
per Trip
2000
2,164
$58,050
$26.83
2001
2,840
$57,135
$20.12
2002
3,583
$60,256
$16.82
2003
2,407
$48,855
$20.30
2004
2,679
$57,007
$21.28
Average
2,735
$56,261
$21.07
Town’s Share of Transit Costs
As indicated in the following table, Auburn is responsible for an average of $87,470 in transit
funding to the Worcester Regional Transit Authority, 16% of which represents the cost of
brokered paratransit trips.
Table 60
Town of Auburn Assessments Paid to WRTA
12
Year
WRTA
Assessment
Paratransit
Brokerage
Portion
2000
$88,482
$14,513
2001
$91,768
$14,284
2002
$104,489
$15,064
2003
$70,103
$12,214
2004
$82,509
$14,252
Average
$87,470
$14,065
WRTA Annual Financial Statements
Transportation
153
RECOMMENDATIONS
Auburn’s 1987 Master Plan indicated that two major regional highway infrastructure
improvements would significantly affect vehicular movement into and through the Town of
Auburn. As such, efforts were to be focused on local circulation issues, especially traffic
congestion. Today’s transportation issues in Auburn are more complex than traffic congestion
alone. Based upon the data in the Transportation Inventory and discussions of the Master Plan
Committee, Town staff, and the Traffic Advisory Committee, the following goal, objectives, and
recommended actions are presented for pursuit by the Town over the next 20 years.
Transportation Goal
Enhance and maintain mobility, safety, and travel choices to, from, and within Auburn.
Objectives & Recommended Actions
Objective 1:
Maintain and improve the ability to get off and on the interstate highway
system safely within the Town of Auburn.
Action 1-A: (Short Term) Eliminate the merge configuration of the I-290 eastbound off-ramp at
Route 12 and replace with a four-way, signalized intersection at Church Street.
Action 1-B: (Long Term) Advocate for funding to modernize the Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90/
I-290/I-395 interchange with a layout that considers Auburn’s needs and issues.
Objective 2:
Improve and protect the ability for vehicles to safely and efficiently travel
along the Route 20 corridor within the Town of Auburn.
Action 2-A: (Short Term) Adjust the signal timing at the Route 20/Millbury Street and Route
20/Prospect Street intersections to decrease delay for Route 20 travel while maintaining a
reasonable ability for traffic to safely enter from side streets.
Action 2-B: (Short Term) Work with the Auburn Police Department to conduct in-depth collision
analysis to determine contributing factors to vehicle crashes along Route 20.
Action 2-C: (Medium Term) Implement corrective actions along Route 20 based on the results of
the collision analysis prescribed in Action 2-B.
Action 2-D: (Long Term) Complete a Route 20 Corridor Study for the segment of the highway
between Route 12 and the Worcester City Line that would address mobility, include in-depth
collision analysis, and incorporate the recommendations of the 2004 Community Development
Plan and this Master Plan.
Objective 3:
Optimize traffic flow within Auburn’s commercial areas to maintain the
community’s economic vitality and minimize cut-through traffic in
neighborhoods.
Action 3-A: (Short Term) Complete the design and reconstruction of the Route 12/20 Overlap as
soon as possible. The design process should include in-depth collision analysis to determine
contributing factors to vehicle crashes, and the subsequent reconstruction should incorporate
safety improvements based on the results of the analysis.
Transportation
154
Action 3-B: (Short Term) Complete the design and reconstruction of the Veteran’s Memorial
Corridor as soon as possible. The design process should include in-depth collision analysis to
determine contributing factors to vehicle crashes, and the subsequent reconstruction should
incorporate safety improvements based on the results of the analysis.
Action 3-C: (Short Term) Work with the Auburn Police Department to conduct in-depth collision
analysis to determine contributing factors to vehicle crashes along Auburn Street.
Action 3-D: (Medium Term) Implement corrective actions along Auburn Street based on the
results of the collision analysis prescribed in Action 3-C.
Action 3-E: (Medium Term) Develop and adopt an Access Management bylaw as a component of
the Auburn Zoning Bylaws for Site Plan Approval in Highway Business and Local Business
Zones.
Objective 4:
Reduce the need to rely on personal vehicles within Auburn’s commercial
areas.
Action 4-A: (Short Term) Increase sidewalk maintenance funding
Action 4-B: (Short Term) Promote the needs of Auburn residents and businesses as the WRTA
implements its Comprehensive Redesign Study.
Action 4-C: (Medium Term) Modify Auburn’s Zoning Bylaw as detailed in the 2004 Community
Development Plan. Pay particular attention to the recommended changes to dimensional and
design standards, and to providing flexibility in parking requirements to:
•
Encourage connections between adjacent properties;
•
Revise parking ratios to require fewer spaces for retail;
•
Consider developing a maximum required parking ratio;
•
Allow sharing of parking when adjacent uses have different hours of operation; and
•
Limit the placement of parking in front of buildings to minimize parking lots as the
dominant visual element.
Action 4-D: (Medium-to-Long Term) Increase the frequency and coverage area of transit service
within Auburn to provide more options for work trips. Consider, for example, a circular service
area surrounding Auburn’s central core utilizing Auburn Street, Oxford Street North, Bryn Mawr
Avenue, Warren Road, Route 20, and Millbury Street.
Action 4-E: (Ongoing) Install sidewalks in commercial areas as roads are improved and/or when
development occurs.
Objective 5:
Transportation
Develop Route 12, from Worcester to Auburn Street, and Drury Square as a
Gateway to Auburn, incorporating elements of the Vision Statement and
efforts to enhance safety.
155
Action 5-A: (Short Term) Work with the Auburn Police Department to conduct in-depth collision
analysis to determine contributing factors to vehicle crashes along Route 12 between Drury
Square and the Worcester City Line.
Action 5-B: (Medium Term) Implement corrective actions along Route 12 based on the results of
the collision analysis prescribed in Action 5-A.
Action 5-C: (Medium Term) Implement aesthetic improvements and improve/install sidewalks in
conjunction with the planned MassHighway paving project (tentatively scheduled for 2009) in an
effort to conform to the Town Vision Statement.
Action 5-D: (Long Term) Revitalize Drury Square as detailed in the Town Vision Statement, the
2004 Community Development Plan, and this Master Plan.
Action 5-E: (Ongoing) Increase sidewalk maintenance funding.
Objective 6:
Mitigate the impact of increasing traffic volumes on Auburn’s collector
roads.
Action 6-A: (Short Term) Meet with Millbury officials to discuss improvements to Millbury
Street or options for diverting traffic.
Action 6-B: (Short Term) Work with the Auburn Police Department to conduct in-depth collision
analysis to determine contributing factors to vehicle crashes along Oxford Street North.
Action 6-C: (Medium Term) Implement corrective actions along Oxford Street North based on
the results of the collision analysis prescribed in Action 6-B.
Action 6-D: (Short Term) Advocate for the installation of signage on I-290, which would direct
truck traffic to exit at the College Square interchange and utilize Route 12 to access the Auburn
Industrial Park.
Action 6-E: (Short Term) Encourage businesses in the Auburn Industrial Park to direct truck
traffic to exit at the College Square interchange and utilize Route 12 to access the Auburn
Industrial Park.
Action 6-F: (Medium-to-Long Term) Upgrade the west side collectors to meet the increasing
demand by improving the pavement sub-base and surface condition, enhancing drainage,
providing a consistent and adequate width, and installing paved shoulders and/or sidewalks where
appropriate.
Action 6-G: (Long Term) Work with neighboring communities, CMRPC, and MassHighway to
improve access from I-290 to western Worcester and Leicester to divert regional traffic from
Heard Street and Oxford Street North.
Objective 7:
Adequately fund a regular, ongoing maintenance program to improve the
structural condition and visual appeal of the transportation infrastructure.
Action 7-A: (Short Term) Substantially increase the Road Maintenance Budget -- Consider the
1997 Pavement Management Study, which identified the need for greater funding to help
maintain the road network in fair condition.
Transportation
156
Action 7-B: (Ongoing) Address/improve roadside amenities, such as drainage components,
shoulders, and sidewalks with all roadway improvement projects.
Objective 8:
Provide a network of adequately maintained sidewalks and safe crossing
areas within walking distance of Auburn’s neighborhood Elementary
Schools, paying particular attention to the Julia Bancroft School and
Pakachoag Elementary School neighborhoods.
Action 8-A: (Short Term) Increase sidewalk maintenance funding.
Action 8-B: (Short-to-Medium Term) Install school crossing traffic signal(s) at or near the
Oxford Street North/Pinehurst Avenue intersection.
Action 8-C: (Ongoing) Continue to prioritize sidewalk snow removal within walking distance of
Auburn schools.
Action 8-D: (Ongoing) Install high-quality sidewalks when roads are improved and/or when
development occurs.
Transportation
157
APPENDIX A:
FINDINGS FROM THE COMMUNITY VISION FORUMS
Environment and Open Space
•
Many lakes in town are suffering from heavy weed growth and filling in from runoff of
sediments. A concerted (and no doubt expensive) effort should be taken to restore the water
quality of these lakes.
•
Auburn has comparatively little protected open space and continued development consumes
additional land each year. The town should become more active in purchasing open space
before it is lost.
•
The Community Preservation Act (CPA) was not well-understood by participants. A more
thorough analysis of its applicability to Auburn and of its potential benefits and costs should
be undertaken before it is presented to voters. (The CPA is a local option whereby residents
agree to increase their real estate taxes from 1% to 3%. Funds can and must be used for open
space acquisition, historic preservation and affordable housing. Large state matches are
available to communities that approve the measure.)
Recreation
•
People would like to see more passive recreation opportunities, especially for the elderly, i.e.
scenic walking paths.
•
The Town should expand hiking opportunities on existing town-owned lands, particularly
Pakachoag Meadows and the Stockwell Lands.
•
Existing recreational areas are inadequate to meet the demands of organized sports programs.
This deficit may widen as the Town’s population increases and if recreational sites in private
ownership are removed from recreational use.
Municipal Services
•
Many feel the Town is not adequately maintaining its capital facilities. Too often short-term
financial perspectives rule, and maintenance of facilities is postponed in order to minimize
impacts on the Town budget.
•
There was strong sentiment that the Town should have an annual capital programming
process and provide adequate funding to build or renovate capital facilities and purchase
equipment (fire trucks, snow plows, etc.) when necessary.
•
The Library is an example of a service that residents value highly. Existing facilities are now
inadequate, but Town personnel do a good job with the resources available.
•
Condition of sidewalks in residential areas came up at several meetings as an example of a
service that people are disappointed about.
Tax Rates
•
Many felt that the Town is not adequately funding services in order to keep the tax rate as
low as possible. Some expressed a willingness to pay higher taxes to receive better services.
•
There is little support for granting tax breaks to promote economic development.
Appendix A
158
Quality of Life
•
Many residents are dissatisfied with Town government. Town Meeting especially came under
harsh criticism for the Representatives lack of outreach to their constituents on matters of
pressing importance.
•
To increase Town Meeting attendance, the Town’s web site should post attendance records of
Representatives.
•
Auburn residents believe the quality of life is not as good today as it used to be.
•
Auburn Youth and Family Services (AYFS) is highly valued for its education, training,
counseling and other support services needed by Auburn residents.
•
More volunteers are needed to participate in town affairs. It appears that a handful of
individuals participate on several boards and committees.
•
The Development Coordinating Group (DCG) is a valuable approach to insuring that
developers obtain the cooperation of many municipal departments.
•
Town government does not have an economic development strategy or policy in place. The
Auburn Chamber of Commerce is the entity that performs business recruitment and
community promotion.
•
An economic development policy body of the Town could provide a valuable function by
acting as a liaison with the private sector and helping to facilitate investment.
•
There is little good land left for commercial and industrial development. What is left tends to
be very difficult to develop. Much of it is wet.
•
There is little support for re-zoning land for new commercial and industrial development.
Such uses should be contained to existing zoning districts now in effect.
•
For the long term, most of the opportunity for industrial and commercial growth will involve
re-development of existing property along Routes 12 and 20. This presents an opportunity to
remedy mistakes of the past and improve the appearance and function of highway corridors.
•
Sewers should be extended completely along Route 20 to provide opportunity for office and
light industrial development.
•
State and federal economic development grants should be pursued (PWED, CDAG, PWIP)
where appropriate to promote new industrial and office parks.
•
Auburn’s success in attracting new economic development is principally a result of its
excellent transportation access. Marketing efforts should focus on the advantages of an
Auburn location due to its ease of access and large population base within reasonable travel
time.
•
The high non-residential tax rate does not seem to be a deterrent to growth.
Appendix A
159
Transportation
•
The Town is a confluence of major highways, including the Mass. Turnpike (exit 10), I-290,
I-395, Rt. 20, and Rt. 12. Because of the excellent highway network, Auburn has become a
regional economic center.
•
Traffic studies should be performed for Routes 12 and 20 to devise acceptable roadway
improvements that will improve traffic flow. For example, should the roadways be widened
or divided with medians?
•
The Veterans Highway project for Route 12 is viewed favorably for its enhanced design
elements.
•
Ever increasing traffic through residential areas was a common complaint.
Housing
•
The cost of housing in Auburn is rising and it is becoming increasingly difficult for first time
homebuyers to afford a home here.
•
The housing stock in older neighborhoods does provide some opportunities for moderateincome households.
•
There are few choices for elderly homeowners that provide affordable options to their single
family homes. There is strong support for encouraging affordable elderly housing, retirement
communities, and assisted living facilities for those that no longer wish to maintain a single
family home yet want to continue to live in Auburn.
•
There were mixed responses to the need to create more rental units in Auburn. Many felt
apartments would help decrease the housing shortage, while others felt that additional units
would increase town service costs, especially schools.
•
Accessory apartments were viewed as a means to increase the number of affordable units
without negative impacts on neighborhoods or the Town’s finances.
Neighborhoods
•
The increase in commercial activity is having a negative effect on neighborhoods adjacent to
this growth, especially noise and unsightly activities, e.g. dumpsters and outdoor storage.
•
Buffers should be required to shield adjacent residences from adverse impacts.
•
Traffic is increasing through some residential areas as motorists seek short cuts to avoid
delays on main arteries.
•
Residents like the neighborhood character of the Town and want to preserve their diversity
and tranquility.
Zoning and Land Use Regulation
•
In general, there is support for zoning by-law changes. Especially for commercial and
industrial developments, there should be a clear set of standards that will eliminate
subjectivity and lead to speedy approval.
•
Allow accessory (in-law) apartments.
Appendix A
160
•
Adopt a bylaw to promote elderly and retirement complexes.
•
Require buffers to protect neighborhoods adjacent to commercial development.
•
The table of uses should be re-visited to determine the most appropriate land uses permitted,
especially in the commercial and industrial districts. More (low impact) uses should be
allowed by right if in conformance to zoning standards.
•
Minimum lot size requirements, particularly for the undeveloped areas of Town (RR and RC
zoning districts) should be re-examined.
•
Cluster development should be encouraged and changes made to the zoning bylaw to promote
more use of this technique.
•
Design standards and aesthetic considerations should be drafted to insure high quality
commercial development.
•
Historic preservation is important, and methods to preserve such resources should be strongly
considered, e.g. demolition delay, local historic districts.
Town Character and Form
•
Auburn lacks a clearly defined commercial character. Many residents are dismayed at the
hodge-podge of development styles in Auburn. There is support for consistent architectural
standard to improve the appearance of new development.
•
Streetscape improvements, especially along highway corridors, would greatly improve the
appearance of the Town and people’s perception of Auburn.
•
Residents are particularly disappointed with the character of Drury Square. There seems to be
poor internal circulation patterns and lack of significant commercial “draws”. This area has
more potential to become a community gathering place. One impediment to revitalization is
the overhead power lines, which appear unlikely to be removed or placed underground by the
power company.
Appendix A
161

Auburn, Massachusetts Master Plan, 2006

Transcription

Similar documents

Auburn`s John MacKay - pipes Angus Sinclair - keys With

for sale: north auburn industrial building

The Auburn Doubledays The Auburn Doubledays East Hill Family

SGA`s Collaborative Efforts Auburn University COSGA 2.26.12

Friday Nights Music Series

Karen L. Veverica Dept of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Auburn

MASS Tax Free Day

Auburn Taco Bell.indd

the Work of Restoration - Cape Fear church of Christ

LAKE LIVING at it`s finest