Dear neighbors, With so many analytical people in our resident pool willing to give time and service, I have never understood why there is a perpetual affinity to external consultants. Through my brief observations, I found the "consultant' was a cover for some fabricated thinking. I suspect there is a lot of unhealthy practice in fiscal handling in pretension of creating security and compliance. A total abolition of the self-appointed guardianship should be called for. A full audit could reveal the moles. Sorry to sound unfriendly. Regards, Bijoy Misra
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 1:16 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> wrote: > It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with > these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this > many inaccuracies. > What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the > HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August- right after > the guideline changes were announced and before option C was formed. No > meetings were held in September and the two October meetings were multi > board meeting presentations. > > *Is the full HCAWG reviewing the current proposals and what is being > submitted to the state?* > > Including an additional 18 acres of land in the state proposal that has > not been presented to the town and the Select board and planning board is > unacceptable. > > *The HCAWG needs disbanded for the following reasons:* > •2 members are representing the best interest of the RLF LLC (aka trying > to get the highest density possible allowed by right so they can sell the > property to Civico for more money). > •The proposals presented to the town all include unnecessary land that > does not count towards the HCA compliance target. > •Option C has been submitted to the state with this many inconsistencies > that has been pointed out by David, and 18 acres of land being added that > were not approved by the Select board or Planning board or the town. > •The Open meeting law has been violated numerous times by the HCAWG; and a > meeting mentioned in the select board minutes is missing from the HCAWG > minutes page entirely. > > > Better ways to comply with the HCA have been proposed. Stop rushing to get > a RLF centric rezoning passed and get a better Working group in place. > > *This rezoning is going to shape the future decades of Lincoln- let’s do > it thoughtfully and purposefully. * > > > Sarah Postlethwait > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:37 AM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> *Executive Summary:* >> >> >> - I identified a series of mistakes in the Option C proposal >> submitted to the State for compliance check. Option C as presented in the >> SOTT and approved by the Boards for submission rezoned 70 acres of land. >> The model that was sent to the State rezoned 88 acres, 18 acres more. >> After >> reviewing with our consultant Utile, the mistakes were confirmed by our >> Director of Planning. For reference, the State is asking us to rezone 42 >> acres. >> - The model sent to the State states the maximum number of units that >> can be built in Lincoln as a result of the rezoning is 1,679. The State is >> asking for 635 units. >> - The HCAWG’s decision to include so many parcels near wetlands is >> the main reason for this very high number of units. >> - Public land, for example the DPW, is unnecessarily included in our >> option C proposal. This has the impact of lowering our gross density, >> which >> is one of the State's requirements. >> - Options C and D1-D3 create an incentive for massive redevelopment >> of Lincoln Woods. This could be avoided with no impact to compliance. It >> seems that the density denominator used for Lincoln Woods is wrong as >> well. >> - Options D1-D3 presented last night rezone 60-75 acres and could >> also lead to >1,000 units built. >> - More foresight has been applied to the proposals our resident group >> has prepared: the maximum number of units built is exactly the same as the >> compliance requirement (~635). 7 of these proposals have more than 20% >> units near Lincoln Station. >> >> *Findings* >> >> Following multiple requests by residents over the past week, the HCAWG >> finally released the Option C submission to the public yesterday. The >> details of the model were surprising: *about 18 more acres of land were >> included in what was sent to the State than what was presented to the >> public and approved by the Boards. A number of parcels along Lincoln Rd >> that were never part of any district presented to the public were added to >> our submitted proposal*. While the parcels do not provide credit towards >> compliance, their inclusion would lead to up to ~325 incremental units >> given the unit per acre cap. >> >> I alerted the Director of Planning of the discrepancy. After she checked >> with our consultant, Utile, I was informed that the inclusion of those >> parcels had been a mistake. This revelation raises a few questions: >> >> >> - *Are we submitting rezoning proposals to the State prepared by a >> third party without reviewing them?* >> - *Is there someone in the Administration or the HCAWG who has >> studied the model and understands how it works?* >> - *Who is driving the decisions about our district design? Utile or >> appointed officials?* >> >> The State uses a very basic model to calculate the maximum building >> footprint of any parcel. First, any wetlands are excluded. Then, 20% of the >> gross acreage is also taken out as “open land”. Finally, 45% of the >> remainder is considered parking spaces – note the irony that we are >> fantasizing about a car-free neighborhood and the State is assuming parking >> space will take almost as much land as the buildings*. It is extremely >> punitive to include parcels with a big wetland presence. Either Utile did >> not communicate the message or our WG/staff did not digest it, as we could >> not have come up with a more wetland-heavy district.* >> >> Option C includes *over 40 acres of parcels for which we get no credit >> from the State*, which we could drop from our proposal with no >> repercussions. We are *unnecessarily including 6 acres of public land, >> even conservation land, most of which is the DPW, which could have been >> left out altogether.* Including all that unnecessary public land lowers >> our gross density. It is important to note that just because the State does >> not give us credit in modeling does not mean that those parcels could not >> be developed at some future date to the maximum number of units per acre >> they have been rezoned to, perhaps in combination with other parcels. >> >> There are more surprises. Option C would allow TCB, the owner of Lincoln >> Woods, to build up to 403 units in that parcel. It is important to >> understand that the maximum number of units per acre applies to all the >> land in a parcel, not just the developable land. *TCB could in time >> evict all tenants, tear down all of the 125 two-story semi-detached housing >> units, and build one or more massive three-story buildings in their parcel >> with a lot more units.* The fact that the affordability restriction for >> Lincoln Woods ends in 2032 makes that possibility all the more real. This >> threat can be avoided if the WG puts a cap of 7 or 8 units per acre rather >> than 20. The Town gets absolutely no compliance benefit from having that >> higher cap since it is only modeling 159 units. *Why are we rezoning >> Lincoln Woods at 20 units per acre if we get no additional credit from it?* >> It >> is worth noting that the developable land in Lincoln Woods had been >> presented as 7.0, last night it jumped to 7.6, but if we look at the model >> submitted it only adds up to 6.2. It looks like either the number of units >> calculated for Lincoln Wood or the gross density are wrong. >> >> Putting it all together, we get an alarming vision of the potentialities >> of the rezoning exercise. The table below is a screenshot from the model >> submitted. *Up to 1,679 units could be built within 0.5 miles of Lincoln >> Station*. That is 80% of the existing total number of units in Lincoln >> (ex. Hanscom). I realize this is a worst-case scenario, by *why are we >> even talking about this risk?* All of this can be avoided if a little >> bit more thought is applied to the proposals. >> [image: image.png] >> >> >> *Proposals D1-D3 presented last night suffer from the same deficiencies. >> All of them would enable up to well over 1,000 units built in Lincoln.* >> >> *The proposals our group of concerned residents put together and have >> presented to the WG, PB and SB do not have any of these problems. The >> modeled capacity of our proposals, 7 of which have more than 20% of units >> and land in Lincoln Station, exactly matches the maximum number of units >> that could be built.* >> >> David Cuetos >> >> Weston Rd >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
