Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Bijoy Misra]

Let me repeat what I expressed five years ago.
The redesign of Lincoln Station to a populated Town Center
would need substantial infrastructure development like
two lane roads, open areas, parking spaces and playgrounds.
I visited Newton Center yesterday.  This place was a sleepy
corner when we were covering it through our Walk for Hunger
May walk.  It is an urban island now, but no tall housing nearby.
So the planning needs to be in two phases. Phase I acquires land,
develops a town center, creates space, attracts(allows) business.
Phase II acquires more land, develops housing in a manner keeping
the character of the town and looking into the projected demography.
Phase I has to be voted to lead to Phase II.  Phase I is town money,
state funding can be sought.  Phase II is developer's money and will
be in developer's control. Phase II does not automatically produce
Phase I.   It is not acces road development as in Oriole Landing.
I am not brighter than people in the planning board, but I saw then
and see now that the people are not "planning" using the models
but are talking in slogans and misleading vocabulary..
Best regards,
Bijoy Misra


On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 5:32 PM Benjamin Shiller 
wrote:

> I doubt that the additional housing supply would materially impact housing
> values in Lincoln (unless they make it a less desirable place to live).
> Lincoln is not an island, but rather part of the Boston metro.  The 600
> housing units we are talking about won't substantially change supply around
> Boston.  The overall housing choice act might, but whether other towns
> develop is out of our control.  Thus, I hope that we can stop focusing on
> home values in relation to the HCA (no matter which side one is on) vote,
> and focus on the other issues at hand.
>
> Ben
> --
> 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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Greg H.]

iant proposals with a
>> group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are equally concerned about the
>> impact of this proposal in our town. We believe that those proposals would
>> do a much better job of preserving what makes Lincoln great and ensuring
>> that we continue to plan Lincoln's future in a democratic, thoughtful way.
>>
>> David Cuetos
>> Weston Rd
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis 
>> wrote:
>>
>> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it is
>> being applied:
>>
>>- The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms.
>>Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG,
>>confirmed that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how
>>the HCA Option C model is being submitted
>>- Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands
>>
>> *We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our
>> 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" - are we
>> suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units by
>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we plan
>> to renege on? *
>>
>> The guidelines state the following:  *"The multi-family zoning districts
>> required by Section 3A should encourage the development of multi-family
>> housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are compatible with
>> existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to sensitive land."*
>>
>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily
>> including so much of it?
>>
>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other
>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message".
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
>>
>> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback requirements
>> that we must follow.
>>
>> We are subject to both our  local  wetlands bylaw and the state wetlands
>> protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction within 100
>> feet of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis 
>> wrote:
>>
>> That is inaccurate. *The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable
>> land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see
>> link below)*. Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn)
>> confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our HCA
>> model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>>
>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we are
>> submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a 50'
>> buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local 100'
>> buffer.
>>
>> Link to State wetland protectionshttps://
>> www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: Margaret Olson 
>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>> To: David Cuetos 
>> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>>
>>
>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I
>> believe the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
>>
>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include any
>> changes to our wetlands regulations.
>>
>> The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make
>> all the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work.
>>
>> The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal
>> property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not count
>> as developable land for the purposes of the HCA.
>>
>> The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice working
>> group page:
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group.
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members involved
>> in the HCA rezoning process
>>
>>  *Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland
>> restrictions?*
>>
>> Option C includes on

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Nicole Kaplan]

ate, according to the model rules, we are submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a 50' buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local 100' buffer. 
  
  
   
  
  
  Link to State wetland protectionshttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  -- Forwarded message -
  
  From: Margaret Olson <s...@margaretolson.com>
              
  Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
  
  Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
  
  To: David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com>
  
  CC: Lincoln Talk <lincoln@lincolntalk.org>
  
  
  
  
  
  The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I believe the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
  
  
   
  
  
  The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include any changes to our wetlands regulations.
  
  
   
  
  
  The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make all the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work.
  
  
   
  
  
  The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not count as developable land for the purposes of the HCA.
  
  
   
  
  
  The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice working group page: https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group.
  
  
   
  
  
  Margaret
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> wrote:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members involved in the HCA rezoning process
  
  
   
  
  
   Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland restrictions?
  
  
   
  
  
  Option C includes only a 50' buffer from wetlands, as that is what is allowed by the State. Lincoln has historically required a 100' setback. When a given district is rezoned to make it HCA compliant, Lincoln is de facto aligning with the State's wetlands characterization and 50' buffer. Thus, the rezoning would make it possible to build in areas in which it would not 

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Carl Angiolillo]

gt;>>>>>> is being applied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>- The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands.
>>>>>>>Ms. Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the 
>>>>>>> HCAWG,
>>>>>>>confirmed that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That 
>>>>>>> is how
>>>>>>>the HCA Option C model is being submitted
>>>>>>>- Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet
>>>>>>> our 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" -
>>>>>>> are we suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such 
>>>>>>> units by
>>>>>>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we 
>>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>> to renege on? *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The guidelines state the following:  *"The multi-family zoning
>>>>>>> districts required by Section 3A should encourage the development of
>>>>>>> multi-family housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are
>>>>>>> compatible with existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to
>>>>>>> sensitive land."*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily
>>>>>>> including so much of it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other
>>>>>>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback
>>>>>>>> requirements that we must follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are subject to both our  local  wetlands bylaw and the state
>>>>>>>> wetlands protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction
>>>>>>>> within 100 feet of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is inaccurate. *The State uses a 50' buffer to model
>>>>>>>>> developable land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection 
>>>>>>>>> Program
>>>>>>>>> Policy (see link below)*. Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land
>>>>>>>>> Use (Paula Vaughn) confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands 
>>>>>>>>> and 50'
>>>>>>>>> setback in our HCA model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local 
>>>>>>>>> Lincoln
>>>>>>>>> ordinance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules,
>>>>>>>>> we are submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State 
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> a 50' buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our 
>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>> 100' buffer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Link to State wetland protectionshttps://
>>>>>>>>> www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>>>>>>>>> From: Margaret Olson 
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

s process. 
>>>>> The State has calculated our developable land using that criteria and our 
>>>>> models use those same assumptions. It would be absurd to pretend that we 
>>>>> can tell the EOHLC an area is developable and then turn around and try to 
>>>>> prevent a developer from building in that same spot. One of the main 
>>>>> goals of the HCA is to prevent towns from that kind of obstructionism.
>>>>>  
>>>>> If there was any doubt about what I have just exposed, I do not 
>>>>> understand why the Boards failed to consult with legal counsel in due 
>>>>> time. It seems irresponsible to submit a proposal to the State and ask 
>>>>> residents to vote on it at Town Meeting when basic questions like this 
>>>>> have not been addressed. It is for this reason that I and many other 
>>>>> residents think that we are unnecessarily rushing this process, failing 
>>>>> to properly analyze all the different impacts of this critical decision 
>>>>> we are putting in front of residents.
>>>>>  
>>>>> I applaud the decision to bring this to town counsel now. However, I 
>>>>> would encourage residents to take whatever advice is provided with some 
>>>>> skepticism. Not for nothing this is the same legal counsel who first told 
>>>>> residents that HCA was an optional program, and now, without any judicial 
>>>>> review intervening, is telling us that compliance is mandatory. This is 
>>>>> the same legal counsel whose partner is giving another town the opposite 
>>>>> advice we are receiving. We need independent legal advice,not advice from 
>>>>> one whose continuing employment depends on individuals with strong views 
>>>>> on this matter.
>>>>>  
>>>>> I would be happy to walk through the details of why the inclusion of DPW 
>>>>> and the parcels south and east of it is an unnecessary part of Option C. 
>>>>> Removing those parcels would bring us back to the Codman Corner district, 
>>>>> presented in June by the HCA WG. All it would be required for us to do 
>>>>> then would be to actually model the number of units to our stated number 
>>>>> of units per acre, rather than an arbitrarily lower number like we do 
>>>>> today. Having done those two things, we would still have 639 units and 
>>>>> would continue to meet all the guidelines for approval by the EOHLC. I do 
>>>>> not understand why the WG decided to raise the number of units per acre 
>>>>> to 18, rather than the previous 15, if they were simultaneously planning 
>>>>> to lower the number we use for modeling. It really seems from the outside 
>>>>> like they were pushing us to develop the DPW and wetland buffer areas. 
>>>>> Perhaps people with more knowledge of what happened can help me 
>>>>> understand it.
>>>>>  
>>>>> I do not want people to take away from my email that I support a reformed 
>>>>> Option C with the changes I have underlined. While undoubtedly better 
>>>>> than what was presented to residents, it is still a very problematic 
>>>>> proposal. I am happy to say that I am working on a set of compliant 
>>>>> proposals with a group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are equally 
>>>>> concerned about the impact of this proposal in our town. We believe that 
>>>>> those proposals would do a much better job of preserving what makes 
>>>>> Lincoln great and ensuring that we continue to plan Lincoln's future in a 
>>>>> democratic, thoughtful way.
>>>>>  
>>>>> David Cuetos
>>>>> Weston Rd
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis >>>> <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it is 
>>>>> being applied:
>>>>> The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms. Vaughn, 
>>>>> our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG, confirmed 
>>>>> that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how the HCA 
>>>>> Option C model is being submitted
>>>>> Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands 
>>>>> We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our 635 

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

; This is the same legal counsel whose partner is giving another town the 
>>>>>> opposite advice we are receiving. We need independent legal advice,not 
>>>>>> advice from one whose continuing employment depends on individuals with 
>>>>>> strong views on this matter.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I would be happy to walk through the details of why the inclusion of DPW 
>>>>>> and the parcels south and east of it is an unnecessary part of Option C. 
>>>>>> Removing those parcels would bring us back to the Codman Corner 
>>>>>> district, presented in June by the HCA WG. All it would be required for 
>>>>>> us to do then would be to actually model the number of units to our 
>>>>>> stated number of units per acre, rather than an arbitrarily lower number 
>>>>>> like we do today. Having done those two things, we would still have 639 
>>>>>> units and would continue to meet all the guidelines for approval by the 
>>>>>> EOHLC. I do not understand why the WG decided to raise the number of 
>>>>>> units per acre to 18, rather than the previous 15, if they were 
>>>>>> simultaneously planning to lower the number we use for modeling. It 
>>>>>> really seems from the outside like they were pushing us to develop the 
>>>>>> DPW and wetland buffer areas. Perhaps people with more knowledge of what 
>>>>>> happened can help me understand it.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I do not want people to take away from my email that I support a 
>>>>>> reformed Option C with the changes I have underlined. While undoubtedly 
>>>>>> better than what was presented to residents, it is still a very 
>>>>>> problematic proposal. I am happy to say that I am working on a set of 
>>>>>> compliant proposals with a group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are 
>>>>>> equally concerned about the impact of this proposal in our town. We 
>>>>>> believe that those proposals would do a much better job of preserving 
>>>>>> what makes Lincoln great and ensuring that we continue to plan Lincoln's 
>>>>>> future in a democratic, thoughtful way.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> David Cuetos
>>>>>> Weston Rd
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis >>>>> <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it is 
>>>>>> being applied:
>>>>>> The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms. Vaughn, 
>>>>>> our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG, confirmed 
>>>>>> that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how the HCA 
>>>>>> Option C model is being submitted
>>>>>> Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands 
>>>>>> We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our 
>>>>>> 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" - are 
>>>>>> we suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units by 
>>>>>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we 
>>>>>> plan to renege on? 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> The guidelines state the following:  "The multi-family zoning districts 
>>>>>> required by Section 3A should encourage the development of multi-family 
>>>>>> housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are compatible 
>>>>>> with existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to sensitive land."
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily 
>>>>>> including so much of it?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other 
>>>>>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message". 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball >>>>> <mailto:selene...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi 
>>>>>> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>

[LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Benjamin Shiller]

I doubt that the additional housing supply would materially impact housing
values in Lincoln (unless they make it a less desirable place to live).
Lincoln is not an island, but rather part of the Boston metro.  The 600
housing units we are talking about won't substantially change supply around
Boston.  The overall housing choice act might, but whether other towns
develop is out of our control.  Thus, I hope that we can stop focusing on
home values in relation to the HCA (no matter which side one is on) vote,
and focus on the other issues at hand.

Ben
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Bryce Wells via Lincoln]

>> If there was any doubt about what I have just exposed, I do not
>>> understand why the Boards failed to consult with legal counsel in due time.
>>> It seems irresponsible to submit a proposal to the State and ask residents
>>> to vote on it at Town Meeting when basic questions like this have not
>>> been addressed. It is for this reason that I and many other residents think
>>> that we are unnecessarily rushing this process, failing to properly analyze
>>> all the different impacts of this critical decision we are putting in front
>>> of residents.
>>>
>>> I applaud the decision to bring this to town counsel now. However, I
>>> would encourage residents to take whatever advice is provided with some
>>> skepticism. Not for nothing this is the same legal counsel who first told
>>> residents that HCA was an optional program, and now, without any judicial
>>> review intervening, is telling us that compliance is mandatory. This is the
>>> same legal counsel whose partner is giving another town the opposite advice
>>> we are receiving. We need independent legal advice,not advice from one
>>> whose continuing employment depends on individuals with strong views on
>>> this matter.
>>>
>>> I would be happy to walk through the details of why the inclusion of DPW
>>> and the parcels south and east of it is an unnecessary part of Option C.
>>> Removing those parcels would bring us back to the Codman Corner district,
>>> presented in June by the HCA WG. All it would be required for us to do then
>>> would be to actually model the number of units to our stated number of
>>> units per acre, rather than an arbitrarily lower number like we do today.
>>> Having done those two things, we would still have 639 units and would
>>> continue to meet all the guidelines for approval by the EOHLC. I do not
>>> understand why the WG decided to raise the number of units per acre to 18,
>>> rather than the previous 15, if they were simultaneously planning to lower
>>> the number we use for modeling. It really seems from the outside like they
>>> were pushing us to develop the DPW and wetland buffer areas. Perhaps people
>>> with more knowledge of what happened can help me understand it.
>>>
>>> I do not want people to take away from my email that I support a
>>> reformed Option C with the changes I have underlined. While
>>> undoubtedly better than what was presented to residents, it is still a very
>>> problematic proposal. I am happy to say that I am working on a set of
>>> compliant proposals with a group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are
>>> equally concerned about the impact of this proposal in our town. We believe
>>> that those proposals would do a much better job of preserving what makes
>>> Lincoln great and ensuring that we continue to plan Lincoln's future in a
>>> democratic, thoughtful way.
>>>
>>> David Cuetos
>>> Weston Rd
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it is
>>> being applied:
>>>
>>>- The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms.
>>>Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG,
>>>confirmed that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how
>>>the HCA Option C model is being submitted
>>>- Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands
>>>
>>> *We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our
>>> 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" - are we
>>> suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units by
>>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we plan
>>> to renege on? *
>>>
>>> The guidelines state the following:  *"The multi-family zoning
>>> districts required by Section 3A should encourage the development of
>>> multi-family housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are
>>> compatible with existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to
>>> sensitive land."*
>>>
>>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily
>>> including so much of it?
>>>
>>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other
>>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message".
>>> 
>>>

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Scott Clary]

;>
>>- The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms.
>>Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG,
>>confirmed that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how
>>the HCA Option C model is being submitted
>>- Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands
>>
>> *We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our
>> 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" - are we
>> suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units by
>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we plan
>> to renege on? *
>>
>> The guidelines state the following:  *"The multi-family zoning districts
>> required by Section 3A should encourage the development of multi-family
>> housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are compatible with
>> existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to sensitive land."*
>>
>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily
>> including so much of it?
>>
>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other
>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message".
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
>>
>> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback requirements
>> that we must follow.
>>
>> We are subject to both our  local  wetlands bylaw and the state wetlands
>> protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction within 100
>> feet of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis 
>> wrote:
>>
>> That is inaccurate. *The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable
>> land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see
>> link below)*. Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn)
>> confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our HCA
>> model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>>
>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we are
>> submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a 50'
>> buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local 100'
>> buffer.
>>
>> Link to State wetland protectionshttps://
>> www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: Margaret Olson 
>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>> To: David Cuetos 
>> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>>
>>
>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I
>> believe the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
>>
>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include any
>> changes to our wetlands regulations.
>>
>> The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make
>> all the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work.
>>
>> The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal
>> property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not count
>> as developable land for the purposes of the HCA.
>>
>> The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice working
>> group page:
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group.
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members involved
>> in the HCA rezoning process
>>
>>  *Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland
>> restrictions?*
>>
>> Option C includes only a 50' buffer from wetlands, as that is what is
>> allowed by the State. Lincoln has historically required a 100' setback.
>> When a given district is rezoned to make it HCA compliant, Lincoln is de
>> facto aligning with the State's wetlands characterization and 50' buffer.
>> Thus, the rezoning would make it possible to build in areas in which it
>> would not be possible to build today under Lincoln's conservation
>> practices. I have attached pictures of Codman Rd wetlands from the State
>> map compared to Lincoln's, so that everyone can see how 

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[John Mendelson]

> I applaud the decision to bring this to town counsel now. However, I would
> encourage residents to take whatever advice is provided with some
> skepticism. Not for nothing this is the same legal counsel who first told
> residents that HCA was an optional program, and now, without any judicial
> review intervening, is telling us that compliance is mandatory. This is the
> same legal counsel whose partner is giving another town the opposite advice
> we are receiving. We need independent legal advice,not advice from one
> whose continuing employment depends on individuals with strong views on
> this matter.
>
> I would be happy to walk through the details of why the inclusion of DPW
> and the parcels south and east of it is an unnecessary part of Option C.
> Removing those parcels would bring us back to the Codman Corner district,
> presented in June by the HCA WG. All it would be required for us to do then
> would be to actually model the number of units to our stated number of
> units per acre, rather than an arbitrarily lower number like we do today.
> Having done those two things, we would still have 639 units and would
> continue to meet all the guidelines for approval by the EOHLC. I do not
> understand why the WG decided to raise the number of units per acre to 18,
> rather than the previous 15, if they were simultaneously planning to lower
> the number we use for modeling. It really seems from the outside like they
> were pushing us to develop the DPW and wetland buffer areas. Perhaps people
> with more knowledge of what happened can help me understand it.
>
> I do not want people to take away from my email that I support a reformed
> Option C with the changes I have underlined. While undoubtedly better than
> what was presented to residents, it is still a very problematic proposal. I
> am happy to say that I am working on a set of compliant proposals with a
> group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are equally concerned about the
> impact of this proposal in our town. We believe that those proposals would
> do a much better job of preserving what makes Lincoln great and ensuring
> that we continue to plan Lincoln's future in a democratic, thoughtful way.
>
> David Cuetos
> Weston Rd
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it is
> being applied:
>
>- The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms.
>Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG,
>confirmed that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how
>the HCA Option C model is being submitted
>- Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands
>
> *We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our 635
> minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" - are we
> suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units by
> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we plan
> to renege on? *
>
> The guidelines state the following:  *"The multi-family zoning districts
> required by Section 3A should encourage the development of multi-family
> housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are compatible with
> existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to sensitive land."*
>
> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily
> including so much of it?
>
> While the submission form is available online, the model and other
> documents are not. Please see below for "error message".
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball  wrote:
>
> Hi
> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
>
> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback requirements that
> we must follow.
>
> We are subject to both our  local  wetlands bylaw and the state wetlands
> protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction within 100
> feet of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:
>
> That is inaccurate. *The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable
> land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see
> link below)*. Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn)
> confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our HCA
> model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>
> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we are
> submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a 50'
> buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local 100'
> buffer.
>
> Lin

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Scott Clary]

As far as I know, the Town has not used these funds or grants in the past
so why so necessary moving forward? The only one that looks to make sense
is the massworks grant which could be used to help replace and repair our
water mains. I understand our water mains are in need of replacement,
however, the town is now making it sound critical and we risk losing the
grant by not complying with HCA. If that's the case, then why hasn't
leadership applied for these grants prior? Seems like a bit of
scaremongering here backing an agenda.

Kind Regards,

Scott Clary
617-968-5769

Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 2:28 PM Barbara Low  wrote:

> One question is for what funds would we become ineligible if we do not
> comply. The initial funds were monies we never got anyway. Then Andrea
> Campbell listed several other state funding sources that would be
> unavailable to communities that do not comply. Is that true? Is that legal?
> And what is happening to the law suit filed by the other town? This is
> information we need to make an informed choice.
> --
> *From:* Lincoln  on behalf of maureen <
> maur...@mochuck.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2023 2:14 PM
> *To:* Robert Ahlert ; Carl Angiolillo <
> carlangioli...@gmail.com>; Lincoln Talk 
> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>
> I agree with including "Not Comply" as an option to vote on.  What do we
> gain by rushing to comply with the state's guidelines?  Has anyone done a
> real cost-benefit analysis for Lincoln residents if we increase census to
> these numbers--including increased costs for services such as fire,
> police, ambulance, and roads?  What do we lose from the state regarding
> funding if we do not comply or delay compliance at this time?
> What will be the costs of increased taxes to an already burdened town?
> What do we lose in property values if we destroy what makes Lincoln
> special--the conservation land, hiking trails, wildlife, farmlands, less
> traffic, and lower housing density?  We still will not gain from affordable
> housing.
>
> My husband and I would vote "No Comply"!!
>
> Maureen Malin and Chuck Kaman
>
> On 10/25/2023 9:08 AM EDT Robert Ahlert  wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Carl, as always your intentions are noble.
>
> And I think this is fundamentally what people need to decide for
> themselves and not have the HCAWG making decisions for the people.  I have
> been and am still advocating for 5-7 options at the Dec 'Sense of the
> Town'.
>
> Here is how I personally would lay out the options (feel free to disagree,
> anyone, please) ...
>
> 1. Full S. Lincoln - current Option C
> 2. 80/20 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family area
> 3. 50/50 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family area
> 4. 20/80 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family areas (what i have been
> proposing, not yet included in any Options by HCAWG including the "Ds")
> 5. Full other current Multi-family areas
> 6. No Comply
>
> I ask everyone to write to the Selects and discuss with their neighbors
> and friends to open this process back up and to let some other voices into
> the HCAWG!
>
> Also please start paying attention to the Max Units calculations as show
> in our town's submission to the State using Option C.  Once developer's get
> control 'by right', I'm not sure own town is prepared to defend itself.
> More to come ...
>
> Rob
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:33 AM Carl Angiolillo 
> wrote:
>
> Rob, I'm glad we're in alignment about focusing on areas of existing
> density and infrastructure. Several of the options you and the group
> proposed seem promising. One remaining point of disagreement is how much to
> value walkability and proximity to transit when comparing options. I don't
> think we need to become Switzerland or turn back the clock 100 years or for
> anyone to live an environmentally-friendly car-free life for that to be
> worth prioritizing.
>
> > the Route 2 corridor by far makes the most sense
>
> Route 2 can certainly support much higher volumes of car traffic than
> Lincoln road but it's not an infinite traffic sink. Regional traffic
> including on Route 2 is increasing and Boston apparently now number four in
> the world for congestion ref https://inrix.com/scorecard/. Especially if
> neighboring towns similarly zone for car-dependent developments then
> driving commutes will continue to get worse -- not just on Lincoln Road but
> on Route 2 and elsewhere. I'm definitely not opposed to analyzing the
> impact on specific hotspots like five corners, just pointing out that if
> your goal is to minimize the inevitable increase in rush-hour car traffic
> t

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Barbara Low]

One question is for what funds would we become ineligible if we do not comply. 
The initial funds were monies we never got anyway. Then Andrea Campbell listed 
several other state funding sources that would be unavailable to communities 
that do not comply. Is that true? Is that legal? And what is happening to the 
law suit filed by the other town? This is information we need to make an 
informed choice.

From: Lincoln  on behalf of maureen 

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 2:14 PM
To: Robert Ahlert ; Carl Angiolillo 
; Lincoln Talk 
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

I agree with including "Not Comply" as an option to vote on.  What do we gain 
by rushing to comply with the state's guidelines?  Has anyone done a real 
cost-benefit analysis for Lincoln residents if we increase census to these 
numbers--including increased costs for services such as fire,  police, 
ambulance, and roads?  What do we lose from the state regarding funding if we 
do not comply or delay compliance at this time?
What will be the costs of increased taxes to an already burdened town?  What do 
we lose in property values if we destroy what makes Lincoln special--the 
conservation land, hiking trails, wildlife, farmlands, less traffic, and lower 
housing density?  We still will not gain from affordable housing.

My husband and I would vote "No Comply"!!

Maureen Malin and Chuck Kaman
On 10/25/2023 9:08 AM EDT Robert Ahlert  wrote:


Thanks Carl, as always your intentions are noble.

And I think this is fundamentally what people need to decide for themselves and 
not have the HCAWG making decisions for the people.  I have been and am still 
advocating for 5-7 options at the Dec 'Sense of the Town'.

Here is how I personally would lay out the options (feel free to disagree, 
anyone, please) ...

1. Full S. Lincoln - current Option C
2. 80/20 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family area
3. 50/50 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family area
4. 20/80 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family areas (what i have been 
proposing, not yet included in any Options by HCAWG including the "Ds")
5. Full other current Multi-family areas
6. No Comply

I ask everyone to write to the Selects and discuss with their neighbors and 
friends to open this process back up and to let some other voices into the 
HCAWG!

Also please start paying attention to the Max Units calculations as show in our 
town's submission to the State using Option C.  Once developer's get control 
'by right', I'm not sure own town is prepared to defend itself.  More to come 
...

Rob

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:33 AM Carl Angiolillo 
mailto:carlangioli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Rob, I'm glad we're in alignment about focusing on areas of existing density 
and infrastructure. Several of the options you and the group proposed seem 
promising. One remaining point of disagreement is how much to value walkability 
and proximity to transit when comparing options. I don't think we need to 
become Switzerland or turn back the clock 100 years or for anyone to live an 
environmentally-friendly car-free life for that to be worth prioritizing.

> the Route 2 corridor by far makes the most sense

Route 2 can certainly support much higher volumes of car traffic than Lincoln 
road but it's not an infinite traffic sink. Regional traffic including on Route 
2 is increasing and Boston apparently now number four in the world for 
congestion ref https://inrix.com/scorecard/. Especially if neighboring towns 
similarly zone for car-dependent developments then driving commutes will 
continue to get worse -- not just on Lincoln Road but on Route 2 and elsewhere. 
I'm definitely not opposed to analyzing the impact on specific hotspots like 
five corners, just pointing out that if your goal is to minimize the inevitable 
increase in rush-hour car traffic that accompanies new housing then it seems 
paradoxical to support housing where people have no choice but to drive for 
every trip.

In the short term, putting housing units in places that allow residents to walk 
to stores and take a bus or train to work reduces traffic even if it only 
starts off displacing 10% of car trips compared to a similar quantity of 
housing along Route 2. And in the longer term, even if you believe that the 
displacement will be negligible today, this provides a safety release valve 
that allows additional trips to shift to alternate modes as regional traffic 
gets worse (likely) or walkability/transit gets better (maybe).

That's why resigning ourselves to car-dependent development in an attempt to 
minimize traffic in a specific neighborhood or intersection seems penny wise 
and pound foolish to me. Even if it makes the local impact less acute it makes 
the broader problem more entrenched and when we repeatedly apply this logic 
across towns and generations we end up in a tragedy of the commons with traffic 
backing up at five corners anyway. Avoi

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[maureen]

t; > > > > knowledge of what happened can help me understand it.
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > I do not want people to take away from my email that I 
> > > > > > > > > support a reformed Option C with the changes I have 
> > > > > > > > > underlined. While undoubtedly better than what was presented 
> > > > > > > > > to residents, it is still a very problematic proposal. I am 
> > > > > > > > > happy to say that I am working on a set of compliant 
> > > > > > > > > proposals with a group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are 
> > > > > > > > > equally concerned about the impact of this proposal in our 
> > > > > > > > > town. We believe that those proposals would do a much better 
> > > > > > > > > job of preserving what makes Lincoln great and ensuring that 
> > > > > > > > > we continue to plan Lincoln's future in a democratic, 
> > > > > > > > > thoughtful way.
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > David Cuetos
> > > > > > > > > Weston Rd
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis 
> > > > > > > > > mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer 
> > > > > > > > > > and how it is being applied:
> > > > > > > > > > * The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for 
> > > > > > > > > > wetlands. Ms. Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use 
> > > > > > > > > > and member of the HCAWG, confirmed that we can only exclude 
> > > > > > > > > > wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how the HCA Option C 
> > > > > > > > > > model is being submitted
> > > > > > > > > > * Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands 
> > > > > > > > > > We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose 
> > > > > > > > > > to meet our 635 minimum required units with this plan that 
> > > > > > > > > > uses a 50' setback" - are we suggesting we can then 
> > > > > > > > > > restrict the actual building of such units by enforcing a 
> > > > > > > > > > local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we 
> > > > > > > > > > plan to renege on? 
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > The guidelines state the following:  "The multi-family 
> > > > > > > > > > zoning districts required by Section 3A should encourage 
> > > > > > > > > > the development of multi-family housing projects of a 
> > > > > > > > > > scale, density and aesthetic that are compatible with 
> > > > > > > > > > existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to 
> > > > > > > > > > sensitive land."
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we 
> > > > > > > > > > unnecessarily including so much of it?
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > While the submission form is available online, the model 
> > > > > > > > > > and other documents are not. Please see below for "error 
> > > > > > > > > > message". 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball 
> > > > > > > > > > mailto:selene...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi 
> > > > > > > > > > > Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
> > > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > > Title V

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Robert Ahlert]

>>>>> C. Removing those parcels would bring us back to the Codman Corner
>>>>>>> district, presented in June by the HCA WG. All it would be required for 
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> to do then would be to actually model the number of units to our stated
>>>>>>> number of units per acre, rather than an arbitrarily lower number like 
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>> do today. Having done those two things, we would still have 639 units 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> would continue to meet all the guidelines for approval by the EOHLC. I 
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not understand why the WG decided to raise the number of units per acre 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> 18, rather than the previous 15, if they were simultaneously planning to
>>>>>>> lower the number we use for modeling. It really seems from the outside 
>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>> they were pushing us to develop the DPW and wetland buffer areas. 
>>>>>>> Perhaps
>>>>>>> people with more knowledge of what happened can help me understand it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not want people to take away from my email that I support a
>>>>>>> reformed Option C with the changes I have underlined. While
>>>>>>> undoubtedly better than what was presented to residents, it is still a 
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> problematic proposal. I am happy to say that I am working on a set of
>>>>>>> compliant proposals with a group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are
>>>>>>> equally concerned about the impact of this proposal in our town. We 
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>> that those proposals would do a much better job of preserving what makes
>>>>>>> Lincoln great and ensuring that we continue to plan Lincoln's future in 
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> democratic, thoughtful way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Cuetos
>>>>>>> Weston Rd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it
>>>>>>>> is being applied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>- The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands.
>>>>>>>>Ms. Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the 
>>>>>>>> HCAWG,
>>>>>>>>confirmed that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That 
>>>>>>>> is how
>>>>>>>>the HCA Option C model is being submitted
>>>>>>>>- Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet
>>>>>>>> our 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" 
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> are we suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such 
>>>>>>>> units by
>>>>>>>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we 
>>>>>>>> plan
>>>>>>>> to renege on? *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The guidelines state the following:  *"The multi-family zoning
>>>>>>>> districts required by Section 3A should encourage the development of
>>>>>>>> multi-family housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that 
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> compatible with existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to
>>>>>>>> sensitive land."*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily
>>>>>>>> including so much of it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other
>>>>>>>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>&g

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[William Broughton]

 working on a set of
>>>>> compliant proposals with a group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are
>>>>> equally concerned about the impact of this proposal in our town. We 
>>>>> believe
>>>>> that those proposals would do a much better job of preserving what makes
>>>>> Lincoln great and ensuring that we continue to plan Lincoln's future in a
>>>>> democratic, thoughtful way.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Cuetos
>>>>> Weston Rd
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it
>>>>>> is being applied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms.
>>>>>>Vaughn, our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG,
>>>>>>confirmed that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is 
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>the HCA Option C model is being submitted
>>>>>>- Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet
>>>>>> our 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" -
>>>>>> are we suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units 
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we 
>>>>>> plan
>>>>>> to renege on? *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The guidelines state the following:  *"The multi-family zoning
>>>>>> districts required by Section 3A should encourage the development of
>>>>>> multi-family housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are
>>>>>> compatible with existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to
>>>>>> sensitive land."*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily
>>>>>> including so much of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other
>>>>>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback
>>>>>>> requirements that we must follow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are subject to both our  local  wetlands bylaw and the state
>>>>>>> wetlands protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction
>>>>>>> within 100 feet of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is inaccurate. *The State uses a 50' buffer to model
>>>>>>>> developable land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program
>>>>>>>> Policy (see link below)*. Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land
>>>>>>>> Use (Paula Vaughn) confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 
>>>>>>>> 50'
>>>>>>>> setback in our HCA model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local 
>>>>>>>> Lincoln
>>>>>>>> ordinance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules,
>>>>>>>> we are submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State 
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> a 50' buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our 
>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>> 100' buffer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Link to State wetland protectionshttps://
>>>>>>>> www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-progr

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

 uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms. Vaughn, 
>>>>>> our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG, confirmed 
>>>>>> that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how the HCA 
>>>>>> Option C model is being submitted
>>>>>> Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands 
>>>>>> We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our 
>>>>>> 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" - are 
>>>>>> we suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units by 
>>>>>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we 
>>>>>> plan to renege on? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The guidelines state the following:  "The multi-family zoning districts 
>>>>>> required by Section 3A should encourage the development of multi-family 
>>>>>> housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are compatible 
>>>>>> with existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to sensitive land."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily 
>>>>>> including so much of it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other 
>>>>>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message". 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball >>>>> <mailto:selene...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi 
>>>>>>> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback requirements 
>>>>>>> that we must follow.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We are subject to both our  local  wetlands bylaw and the state 
>>>>>>> wetlands protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction 
>>>>>>> within 100 feet of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis >>>>>> <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> That is inaccurate. The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable 
>>>>>>>> land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy 
>>>>>>>> (see link below). Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula 
>>>>>>>> Vaughn) confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' 
>>>>>>>> setback in our HCA model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local 
>>>>>>>> Lincoln ordinance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we 
>>>>>>>> are submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State 
>>>>>>>> with a 50' buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply 
>>>>>>>> our local 100' buffer. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Link to State wetland 
>>>>>>>> protectionshttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> <http://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>>>>>>>> From: Margaret Olson >>>>>>>> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>>>>>>>>> To: David Cuetos >>>>>>>> <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk >>>>>>>> <mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The p

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

Thank you-all clear now.
However, it surely gives “Plan C” a leg up, if deemed compliant….a bit if a 
finger no the scale.
Well, what’s done is done.



--
Sara Mattes




> On Oct 18, 2023, at 6:39 PM, Margaret Olson  wrote:
> 
> Option C was ready and we can make  multiple submissions.
> The submission is a compliance check - the step where the state says "if you 
> pass that, we will find you to be in compliance".  If the town prefers D it 
> will also go to the state for a compliance check.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:32 PM Sara Mattes  <mailto:samat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I thought we were waiting to submit AFTER  the Dec. Spc.TM?
>> Where is this schedule posted so I can get this straight as to what is 
>> happening when.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sara Mattes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 18, 2023, at 2:11 PM, Margaret Olson >> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The town's submission is posted on the town's HCWG website. You can also go 
>>> to the state website and look at the model. I find it very complicated. 
>>> Perhaps you won't.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:58 PM Bijoy Misra >> <mailto:misra.bi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> I don't understand why we are continuously told that things are too 
>>>> complicated.
>>>> I have heard similar language in the past.  We can handle complicated 
>>>> matters,
>>>> we sort out complicated matters in our physical life.  Can we see all 
>>>> documents?
>>>> Please underline where the complications are.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:46 PM Margaret Olson >>> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, the state model uses the state regulations. We submit our zoning to 
>>>>> the state for a regulatory check using their model. We are not proposing 
>>>>> to change our wetlands regulations. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there some problem with Option C related to wetlands? Maybe - but 
>>>>> that's why we have town counsel. I'm sure he'll tell us if there is, and 
>>>>> then the HCWG will have to figure out how to respond.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Margaret
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:24 PM Karla Gravis >>>> <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> That is inaccurate. The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable 
>>>>>> land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see 
>>>>>> link below). Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn) 
>>>>>> confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our 
>>>>>> HCA model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we 
>>>>>> are submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with 
>>>>>> a 50' buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our 
>>>>>> local 100' buffer. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Link to State wetland 
>>>>>> protectionshttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> <http://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>>>>>> From: Margaret Olson >>>>>> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>>>>>>> To: David Cuetos mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk >>>>>> <mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I 
>>>>>>> believe the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include 
>>>>>>> any changes to our wetlands regulations.
>>>&

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Margaret Olson]

Option C was ready and we can make  multiple submissions.
The submission is a compliance check - the step where the state says "if
you pass that, we will find you to be in compliance".  If the town prefers
D it will also go to the state for a compliance check.

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:32 PM Sara Mattes  wrote:

> I thought we were waiting to submit *AFTER * the Dec. Spc.TM?
> Where is this schedule posted so I can get this straight as to what is
> happening when.
>
>
> --
> Sara Mattes
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2023, at 2:11 PM, Margaret Olson  wrote:
>
> The town's submission is posted on the town's HCWG website. You can also
> go to the state website and look at the model. I find it very complicated.
> Perhaps you won't.
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:58 PM Bijoy Misra  wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why we are continuously told that things are too
>> complicated.
>> I have heard similar language in the past.  We can handle complicated
>> matters,
>> we sort out complicated matters in our physical life.  Can we see all
>> documents?
>> Please underline where the complications are.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:46 PM Margaret Olson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the state *model* uses the state regulations. We submit our zoning
>>> to the state for a regulatory check using their model. We are not proposing
>>> to change our wetlands regulations.
>>>
>>> Is there some problem with Option C related to wetlands? Maybe - but
>>> that's why we have town counsel. I'm sure he'll tell us if there is, and
>>> then the HCWG will have to figure out how to respond.
>>>
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:24 PM Karla Gravis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is inaccurate. *The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable
>>>> land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see
>>>> link below)*. Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula
>>>> Vaughn) confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in
>>>> our HCA model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>>>>
>>>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we
>>>> are submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a
>>>> 50' buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local
>>>> 100' buffer.
>>>>
>>>> Link to State wetland protectionshttps://
>>>> www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>>>> From: Margaret Olson 
>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>>>>> To: David Cuetos 
>>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I
>>>>> believe the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
>>>>>
>>>>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include
>>>>> any changes to our wetlands regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make
>>>>> all the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work.
>>>>>
>>>>> The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal
>>>>> property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not 
>>>>> count
>>>>> as developable land for the purposes of the HCA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice
>>>>> working group page:
>>>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Margaret
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members
>>>>>> involved in the HCA rezoning process
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  *Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland
>>>>>> restrictions?*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option C includes only a 50' buffer from wetlands, as that is what is
>&

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

I would like assurance from Town Counsel that this proposed zoning change will 
NOT create a precedent for subsequent developers to sue in a court challenge to 
our future decisions about development.

Our bylaws have been national modes and it would be a shame to have this effort 
at fast-tracking zoning changes underline all our efforts.


--
Sara Mattes




> On Oct 18, 2023, at 1:44 PM, Margaret Olson  wrote:
> 
> Yes, the state model uses the state regulations. We submit our zoning to the 
> state for a regulatory check using their model. We are not proposing to 
> change our wetlands regulations. 
> 
> Is there some problem with Option C related to wetlands? Maybe - but that's 
> why we have town counsel. I'm sure he'll tell us if there is, and then the 
> HCWG will have to figure out how to respond.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:24 PM Karla Gravis  <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> That is inaccurate. The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable land, 
>> per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see link 
>> below). Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn) confirmed 
>> that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our HCA model, not 
>> the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>> 
>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we are 
>> submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a 50' 
>> buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local 100' 
>> buffer. 
>> 
>> Link to State wetland 
>> protectionshttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>  
>> <http://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: Margaret Olson >> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>>
>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>>> To: David Cuetos mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>>
>>> CC: Lincoln Talk mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I believe 
>>> the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
>>> 
>>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include any 
>>> changes to our wetlands regulations.
>>> 
>>> The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make all 
>>> the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work.
>>> 
>>> The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal 
>>> property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not count 
>>> as developable land for the purposes of the HCA.
>>> 
>>> The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice working 
>>> group page: 
>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group.
>>> 
>>> Margaret
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos >> <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members involved in 
>>>> the HCA rezoning process
>>>> 
>>>>  Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland restrictions?
>>>> 
>>>> Option C includes only a 50' buffer from wetlands, as that is what is 
>>>> allowed by the State. Lincoln has historically required a 100' setback. 
>>>> When a given district is rezoned to make it HCA compliant, Lincoln is de 
>>>> facto aligning with the State's wetlands characterization and 50' buffer. 
>>>> Thus, the rezoning would make it possible to build in areas in which it 
>>>> would not be possible to build today under Lincoln's conservation 
>>>> practices. I have attached pictures of Codman Rd wetlands from the State 
>>>> map compared to Lincoln's, so that everyone can see how different they 
>>>> look. Option C exacerbates this issue because it contains a large wetland 
>>>> area.
>>>> 
>>>> The Codman Rd district in option C was made larger than the Codman Corner 
>>>> district presented by the HCAWG in June, by extending into wetlands. Why 
>>>> are we making it possible to build three-story multi-family buildings on 
>>>> wetland buffers?
>>>> 
>>>> Why did the HCA WG decide 

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Rich Rosenbaum]

I realize now that you were talking about the links embedded in the
document which are, indeed, broken.

Sorry for the confusion.

Rich


On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:26 PM Rich Rosenbaum  wrote:

>
> *Thank you, but the link to access the town’s model submission does not
>> work. *
>>
>
> It seems to work for me (I tried it on 4 different web browsers). It *is*
> a large file (~12 Mb).
>
> Try cut and pasting the link into your browser::
>
>
> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85116/2023-SOTT-HCA-Slide-Deck-wtih-Notes
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:18 PM Karla Gravis 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, but the link to access the town’s model submission does not
>> work.  I get the below error message.
>>
>> I struggle to understand why we are submitting a model with a 50’
>> wetlands buffer if we plan on then enforcing the 100’ wetland buffer, thus
>> restricting the units that can be built. Our submission also includes a
>> high proportion of wetlands. A developer could complain to the State, given
>> that 50’ is the state requirement and also what we submitted for approval.
>>
>> Like is said below, Building codes are different because those wouldn’t
>> impact number of units in such a dramatic way as us utilizing half of the
>> buffer zone we expect to apply. If we plan on enforcing the 100’ buffer,
>> why not apply with that? Or reduce the wetlands acreage in the optio so
>> that we are not exposed to someone challenging our local requirement?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 5:45 PM Margaret Olson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The compliance model is here:
>>> https://www.mass.gov/info-details/compliance-model-components
>>> The town's submission is linked on the HCWG's page on the
>>> town's website:
>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group. You
>>> will see the discussion of the submission of Option C right under the list
>>> of upcoming meetings, along with a link to the submission
>>>
>>>
>>>
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

I thought we were waiting to submit AFTER  the Dec. Spc.TM?
Where is this schedule posted so I can get this straight as to what is 
happening when.


--
Sara Mattes




> On Oct 18, 2023, at 2:11 PM, Margaret Olson  wrote:
> 
> The town's submission is posted on the town's HCWG website. You can also go 
> to the state website and look at the model. I find it very complicated. 
> Perhaps you won't.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:58 PM Bijoy Misra  <mailto:misra.bi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I don't understand why we are continuously told that things are too 
>> complicated.
>> I have heard similar language in the past.  We can handle complicated 
>> matters,
>> we sort out complicated matters in our physical life.  Can we see all 
>> documents?
>> Please underline where the complications are.
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:46 PM Margaret Olson > <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>> wrote:
>>> Yes, the state model uses the state regulations. We submit our zoning to 
>>> the state for a regulatory check using their model. We are not proposing to 
>>> change our wetlands regulations. 
>>> 
>>> Is there some problem with Option C related to wetlands? Maybe - but that's 
>>> why we have town counsel. I'm sure he'll tell us if there is, and then the 
>>> HCWG will have to figure out how to respond.
>>> 
>>> Margaret
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 1:24 PM Karla Gravis >> <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> That is inaccurate. The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable land, 
>>>> per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see link 
>>>> below). Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn) 
>>>> confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our HCA 
>>>> model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>>>> 
>>>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we are 
>>>> submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a 50' 
>>>> buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local 100' 
>>>> buffer. 
>>>> 
>>>> Link to State wetland 
>>>> protectionshttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>>>  
>>>> <http://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>>>> From: Margaret Olson >>>> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>>
>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>>>>> To: David Cuetos mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>>
>>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk >>>> <mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I 
>>>>> believe the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include any 
>>>>> changes to our wetlands regulations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make 
>>>>> all the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal 
>>>>> property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not 
>>>>> count as developable land for the purposes of the HCA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice working 
>>>>> group page: 
>>>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Margaret
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos >>>> <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members involved 
>>>>>> in the HCA rezoning process
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland 
>>>>>> restrictions?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Option C includes only a 50' 

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

Joan,
How do you work with package treatment plants?
What size are they usually and what regs. Control them?
Thanks,
Sara
--
Sara Mattes




> On Oct 18, 2023, at 2:09 PM, Joan Kimball  wrote:
> 
> Hi 
> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act.
> 
> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback requirements that we 
> must follow.
> 
> We are subject to both our  local  wetlands bylaw and the state wetlands 
> protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction within 100 feet 
> of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis  <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> That is inaccurate. The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable land, 
>> per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see link 
>> below). Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn) confirmed 
>> that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our HCA model, not 
>> the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance.
>> 
>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we are 
>> submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with a 50' 
>> buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our local 100' 
>> buffer. 
>> 
>> Link to State wetland 
>> protectionshttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act
>>  
>> <http://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: Margaret Olson >> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>>
>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56
>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
>>> To: David Cuetos mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>>
>>> CC: Lincoln Talk mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I believe 
>>> the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln.
>>> 
>>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include any 
>>> changes to our wetlands regulations. 
>>> 
>>> The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make all 
>>> the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work. 
>>> 
>>> The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal 
>>> property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not count 
>>> as developable land for the purposes of the HCA.
>>> 
>>> The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice working 
>>> group page: 
>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group. 
>>> 
>>> Margaret
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos >> <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members involved in 
>>>> the HCA rezoning process
>>>> 
>>>>  Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland restrictions?
>>>> 
>>>> Option C includes only a 50' buffer from wetlands, as that is what is 
>>>> allowed by the State. Lincoln has historically required a 100' setback. 
>>>> When a given district is rezoned to make it HCA compliant, Lincoln is de 
>>>> facto aligning with the State's wetlands characterization and 50' buffer. 
>>>> Thus, the rezoning would make it possible to build in areas in which it 
>>>> would not be possible to build today under Lincoln's conservation 
>>>> practices. I have attached pictures of Codman Rd wetlands from the State 
>>>> map compared to Lincoln's, so that everyone can see how different they 
>>>> look. Option C exacerbates this issue because it contains a large wetland 
>>>> area.
>>>> 
>>>> The Codman Rd district in option C was made larger than the Codman Corner 
>>>> district presented by the HCAWG in June, by extending into wetlands. Why 
>>>> are we making it possible to build three-story multi-family buildings on 
>>>> wetland buffers?
>>>> 
>>>> Why did the HCA WG decide to newly include 10 acres of parcels 171_26_0 
>>>> through 171_29_0, that the town considers to be mostly wetlands? There was 
>>>> no technical reason to include those parcels . The proposal would still be 
>&

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Rich Rosenbaum]

> *Thank you, but the link to access the town’s model submission does not
> work. *
>

It seems to work for me (I tried it on 4 different web browsers). It *is* a
large file (~12 Mb).

Try cut and pasting the link into your browser::


https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85116/2023-SOTT-HCA-Slide-Deck-wtih-Notes




On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:18 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:

> Thank you, but the link to access the town’s model submission does not
> work.  I get the below error message.
>
> I struggle to understand why we are submitting a model with a 50’ wetlands
> buffer if we plan on then enforcing the 100’ wetland buffer, thus
> restricting the units that can be built. Our submission also includes a
> high proportion of wetlands. A developer could complain to the State, given
> that 50’ is the state requirement and also what we submitted for approval.
>
> Like is said below, Building codes are different because those wouldn’t
> impact number of units in such a dramatic way as us utilizing half of the
> buffer zone we expect to apply. If we plan on enforcing the 100’ buffer,
> why not apply with that? Or reduce the wetlands acreage in the optio so
> that we are not exposed to someone challenging our local requirement?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 5:45 PM Margaret Olson 
> wrote:
>
>> The compliance model is here:
>> https://www.mass.gov/info-details/compliance-model-components
>> The town's submission is linked on the HCWG's page on the town's website:
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group. You
>> will see the discussion of the submission of Option C right under the list
>> of upcoming meetings, along with a link to the submission
>>
>>
>>
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

 the on-site waste disposal system.(h) Utility Service. To the extent feasible, electric, telephone, cable TV and other such lines and equipment shall be underground. The proposed method of solid waste disposal from all buildings shall be indicated. Building structures and adjacent grounds shall permit easy access and operation by fire, police and other emergency personnel and equipment.(i) Signs. The size, location, design, color, texture, lighting and materials of all signs shall not detract from the use and enjoyment of proposed buildings and structures and the surrounding neighborhood.(j) Special Features. Exposed storage areas, exposed machinery installations, service areas, truck loading areas, utility buildings and structures and similar accessory areas and structures shall be subject to such setbacks, screen plantings or other screening methods as shall be feasible to prevent their being incongruous with the existing or contemplated environment and the surrounding neighborhood.(k) Screening. Screening consisting of a solid fence, wall or evergreen planting, in all cases not less than six (6) feet in height or as specified by the Planning Board, shall be provided, erected and maintained wherever feasible to shield the business and light industrial uses of land from any adjoining residential property.(l) Consistency with the By-law. The Planning Board may in any particular case where it determines such action to be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law and otherwise in the public interest, waive strict compliance with its Rules and Regulations and with the requirements contained in this section. Editorial: If you can’t understand, or disapprove of, these standards and criteria, you shouldn’t have voted for them. They were passed by Town Meeting. Any voter can propose changes, again for approval at Town Meeting, employing the usual methods. But this is what the Town Elders brought to Town Meeting and it passed. The entirety of Site Plan regulation may be found at https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/72768/Zoning-Bylaw-FINAL-2022-UPDATED?bidId= See Section 17. SITE PLANS. I am not your lawyer, and don’t wish to receive phone calls asking me to explain site plan review.If, as examples, you own a radio or TV station, cell phone company, wireless internet service provider, etc., and want to erect an antenna, that’s a different story. We can talk. Fred Hopengarten, Esq.    hopengar...@post.harvard.eduSix Willarch Road      www.antennazoning.comLincoln, MA 01773   781.259.0088 From: Lincoln [mailto:lincoln-boun...@lincolntalk.org] On Behalf Of Sara MattesSent: Monday, October 16, 2023 1:09 PMTo: Linda McMillanCc: David Onigman; Lincoln TalkSubject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road A lot of references have been made to “ site review.”It would be helpful to have an official definition, including all the regulatory conditions that can be deployed in said review.What enforceable controls does it offer?Something straightforward- bullet points, eg. would be helpful. Sent from my iPhoneVirus-free.www.avast.com -- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[lincolntalk]

Jeff, I’m not an architect either, but am pretty sure the Onigman lot would 
never host 20, let alone 15 units, unless Lincoln decides to adopt municipal 
sewage. A development isn’t just a building footprint; it needs to conform to 
setbacks, building codes, parking access and probably many other standards. 
(Full disclosure: I wasn’t even able to get a permit for a single-car garage on 
a 2-acre lot, due to such restrictions). The economics would probably have to 
be much more favorable than they are at present.

 

I also enjoy walking to town on a trail that takes me to Todd Pond Road – a 
much quieter route than Codman Rd.!

 

Jennie

Bowles Terrace

 

From: Lincoln  On Behalf Of Jeff B
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 11:43 AM
To: David Onigman 
Cc: lincoln@lincolntalk.org
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

 

David,

 

Looking at the town's GIS, it looks to me like your 2.8 acre plot could 
definitely have a much larger footprint than the existing house, even with the 
wetlands on the property.  And at 15 units an acre, it could potentially house 
20+ units?  What was your sourcing for the inability to develop further?  I 
admit, I'm one of the few town residents who is not an architect so I might be 
missing something.  

 

The HCA working group says that this rezoning would potentially shift 11 units 
into 180 units, so I'm just trying to pin down where these could potentially 
be.  If most of the Codman owners are not planning on taking advantage of this 
change (or cannot), then excluding these lots from a HCA plan would seem to 
cost little to the goals of increased housing stock.

 

In general I'm really struggling with the general issues of this HCA plan that 
takes a very residential street now -- Codman -- and rezones it to something 
entirely different.  It seems like not just taking a downtown area and 
densifying it, but rather expanding the downtown area dramatically in a way 
that doesn't feel like the Lincoln we all know now and (when time allows) walk 
through to get to Codman Farm and Donelans or the Tack Room.  The feel of 
houses like yours really makes the walk feel more like being on one of our many 
trails in town, versus on a busy street sidewalk.

 

Add my voice to all the others on here that would be very interested in seeing 
a HCA compliant proposal that doesn't include the Codman subdistrict.  If we as 
a town discover we love the feel of the new downtown housing project awaiting a 
greenlight, we can always add a Codman district later and double the effect.  
But we don't have the luxury of clawing it back ever, and this current plan 
looks like a blind leap that would cost a feel that many in the town cherish.

 

Jeff Birchby

Twin Pond Lane

-- Forwarded message -
From: David Onigman mailto:davidonig...@gmail.com> >
Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:35 AM
Subject: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
To: mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org> >

 

I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk, but 
after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of the Codman 
Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing Choice Act and our 
road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in.

I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in favor of 
my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals submitted to the 
Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing Choice Act.

I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor of the 
legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in Massachusetts, 
and every town can do their part to contribute a small bit to increased 
inventory to support this issue. 

I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a frequent 
user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a one car family 
largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston.

I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as close to 
the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the spirit of this 
legislation, and also what is best for our town planning.

I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise children. 

Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to change that. 

I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws in 
certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a good thing. 

I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small commercial 
center and maintain services like a grocery store need to modify a bit of the 
by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a grocery store are 
sustainable.

Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial 
aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot, 
surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family home, 
built in 1951, has alway

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Susanna Szeto]

Hi Jeff,You have taken the words out of my mouth and that is the sentiment I feel!  Thank you for saying it!Susanna SzetoOn Oct 16, 2023, at 2:05 PM, Jeff B  wrote:David,Looking at the town's GIS, it looks to me like your 2.8 acre plot could definitely have a much larger footprint than the existing house, even with the wetlands on the property.  And at 15 units an acre, it could potentially house 20+ units?  What was your sourcing for the inability to develop further?  I admit, I'm one of the few town residents who is not an architect so I might be missing something.  The HCA working group says that this rezoning would potentially shift 11 units into 180 units, so I'm just trying to pin down where these could potentially be.  If most of the Codman owners are not planning on taking advantage of this change (or cannot), then excluding these lots from a HCA plan would seem to cost little to the goals of increased housing stock.In general I'm really struggling with the general issues of this HCA plan that takes a very residential street now -- Codman -- and rezones it to something entirely different.  It seems like not just taking a downtown area and densifying it, but rather expanding the downtown area dramatically in a way that doesn't feel like the Lincoln we all know now and (when time allows) walk through to get to Codman Farm and Donelans or the Tack Room.  The feel of houses like yours really makes the walk feel more like being on one of our many trails in town, versus on a busy street sidewalk.Add my voice to all the others on here that would be very interested in seeing a HCA compliant proposal that doesn't include the Codman subdistrict.  If we as a town discover we love the feel of the new downtown housing project awaiting a greenlight, we can always add a Codman district later and double the effect.  But we don't have the luxury of clawing it back ever, and this current plan looks like a blind leap that would cost a feel that many in the town cherish.Jeff BirchbyTwin Pond Lane-- Forwarded message -From: David Onigman Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:35 AMSubject: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman RoadTo:  I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk, but after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of the Codman Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing Choice Act and our road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in.I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in favor of my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals submitted to the Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing Choice Act.I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor of the legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in Massachusetts, and every town can do their part to contribute a small bit to increased inventory to support this issue. I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a frequent user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a one car family largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston.I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as close to the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the spirit of this legislation, and also what is best for our town planning.I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise children. Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to change that. I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws in certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a good thing. I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small commercial center and maintain services like a grocery store need to modify a bit of the by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a grocery store are sustainable.Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot, surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family home, built in 1951, has always stood here, and we have no intentions of leaving.So I am just here to say - yes, in my backyard, I support the HCA, I support Codman road being included as one of the subdistricts. Every town can do a small part to support more housing inventory and every town can do a small part to allow more housing near public transportation.I’m not looking to engage in any LincolnTalk back and forth on my thoughts on this, but if anyone is looking to discuss these topics further offline, please feel free to write me an email and we can grab a cup of coffee.
-- 
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 

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Fred Hopengarten]

 with the existing or contemplated environment and the 
surrounding neighborhood.
(k) Screening. Screening consisting of a solid fence, wall or evergreen 
planting, in all cases not less than six (6) feet in height or as specified by 
the Planning Board, shall be provided, erected and maintained wherever feasible 
to shield the business and light industrial uses of land from any adjoining 
residential property.
(l) Consistency with the By-law. The Planning Board may in any particular case 
where it determines such action to be consistent with the purpose and intent of 
the Zoning By-law and otherwise in the public interest, waive strict compliance 
with its Rules and Regulations and with the requirements contained in this 
section.

Editorial: If you can’t understand, or disapprove of, these standards and 
criteria, you shouldn’t have voted for them. They were passed by Town Meeting. 
Any voter can propose changes, again for approval at Town Meeting, employing 
the usual methods. But this is what the Town Elders brought to Town Meeting and 
it passed.

The entirety of Site Plan regulation may be found at 
https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/72768/Zoning-Bylaw-FINAL-2022-UPDATED?bidId=
See Section 17. SITE PLANS.

I am not your lawyer, and don’t wish to receive phone calls asking me to 
explain site plan review.
If, as examples, you own a radio or TV station, cell phone company, wireless 
internet service provider, etc., and want to erect an antenna, that’s a 
different story. We can talk.

Fred Hopengarten, Esq. 
<mailto:hopengar...@post.harvard.edu> hopengar...@post.harvard.edu
Six Willarch Road   
<http://www.antennazoning.com/> www.antennazoning.com
Lincoln, MA 01773   781.259.0088
Cover Art 9780240811123_AntennaZoning




From: Lincoln [mailto:lincoln-boun...@lincolntalk.org] On Behalf Of Sara Mattes
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 1:09 PM
To: Linda McMillan
Cc: David Onigman; Lincoln Talk
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

A lot of references have been made to “ site review.”
It would be helpful to have an official definition, including all the 
regulatory conditions that can be deployed in said review.
What enforceable controls does it offer?
Something straightforward- bullet points, eg. would be helpful.

Sent from my iPhone





--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Jeff B]

David,

Looking at the town's GIS, it looks to me like your 2.8 acre plot could
definitely have a much larger footprint than the existing house, even with
the wetlands on the property.  And at 15 units an acre, it could
potentially house 20+ units?  What was your sourcing for the inability to
develop further?  I admit, I'm one of the few town residents who is not an
architect so I might be missing something.

The HCA working group says that this rezoning would potentially shift 11
units into 180 units, so I'm just trying to pin down where these could
potentially be.  If most of the Codman owners are not planning on taking
advantage of this change (or cannot), then excluding these lots from a HCA
plan would seem to cost little to the goals of increased housing stock.

In general I'm really struggling with the general issues of this HCA plan
that takes a very residential street now -- Codman -- and rezones it to
something entirely different.  It seems like not just taking a downtown
area and densifying it, but rather expanding the downtown area dramatically
in a way that doesn't feel like the Lincoln we all know now and (when time
allows) walk through to get to Codman Farm and Donelans or the Tack Room.
The feel of houses like yours really makes the walk feel more like being on
one of our many trails in town, versus on a busy street sidewalk.

Add my voice to all the others on here that would be very interested in
seeing a HCA compliant proposal that doesn't include the Codman
subdistrict.  If we as a town discover we love the feel of the new downtown
housing project awaiting a greenlight, we can always add a Codman district
later and double the effect.  But we don't have the luxury of clawing it
back ever, and this current plan looks like a blind leap that would cost a
feel that many in the town cherish.

Jeff Birchby
Twin Pond Lane

-- Forwarded message -
From: David Onigman 
Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:35 AM
Subject: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road
To: 


I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk,
but after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of the
Codman Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing Choice Act
and our road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in.

I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in favor
of my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals submitted to
the Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing Choice Act.

I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor of
the legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in
Massachusetts, and every town can do their part to contribute a small bit
to increased inventory to support this issue.

I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a
frequent user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a one
car family largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston.

I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as close
to the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the spirit of
this legislation, and also what is best for our town planning.

I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise
children.

Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to change
that.

I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws in
certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a good
thing.

I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small commercial
center and maintain services like a grocery store need to modify a bit of
the by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a grocery store are
sustainable.

Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial
aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot,
surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family
home, built in 1951, has always stood here, and we have no intentions of
leaving.

So I am just here to say - yes, in my backyard, I support the HCA, I
support Codman road being included as one of the subdistricts.

Every town can do a small part to support more housing inventory and every
town can do a small part to allow more housing near public transportation.

I’m not looking to engage in any LincolnTalk back and forth on my thoughts
on this, but if anyone is looking to discuss these topics further offline,
please feel free to write me an email and we can grab a cup of coffee.
-- 
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 subscrip

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Sara Mattes]

A lot of references have been made to “ site review.”It would be helpful to have an official definition, including all the regulatory conditions that can be deployed in said review.What enforceable controls does it offer?Something straightforward- bullet points, eg. would be helpful.Sent from my iPhoneOn Oct 16, 2023, at 7:03 PM, Linda McMillan  wrote:Agree. We'll stated. On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, 9:35 AM David Onigman  wrote:I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk, but after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of the Codman Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing Choice Act and our road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in.I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in favor of my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals submitted to the Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing Choice Act.I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor of the legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in Massachusetts, and every town can do their part to contribute a small bit to increased inventory to support this issue. I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a frequent user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a one car family largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston.I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as close to the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the spirit of this legislation, and also what is best for our town planning.I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise children. Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to change that. I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws in certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a good thing. I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small commercial center and maintain services like a grocery store need to modify a bit of the by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a grocery store are sustainable.Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot, surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family home, built in 1951, has always stood here, and we have no intentions of leaving.So I am just here to say - yes, in my backyard, I support the HCA, I support Codman road being included as one of the subdistricts. Every town can do a small part to support more housing inventory and every town can do a small part to allow more housing near public transportation.I’m not looking to engage in any LincolnTalk back and forth on my thoughts on this, but if anyone is looking to discuss these topics further offline, please feel free to write me an email and we can grab a cup of coffee.
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Linda McMillan]

Agree. We'll stated.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023, 9:35 AM David Onigman  wrote:

> I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk,
> but after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of the
> Codman Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing Choice Act
> and our road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in.
>
> I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in favor
> of my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals submitted to
> the Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing Choice Act.
>
> I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor of
> the legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in
> Massachusetts, and every town can do their part to contribute a small bit
> to increased inventory to support this issue.
>
> I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a
> frequent user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a one
> car family largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston.
>
> I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as
> close to the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the
> spirit of this legislation, and also what is best for our town planning.
>
> I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise
> children.
>
> Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to change
> that.
>
> I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws
> in certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a good
> thing.
>
> I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small
> commercial center and maintain services like a grocery store need to modify
> a bit of the by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a grocery
> store are sustainable.
>
> Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial
> aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot,
> surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family
> home, built in 1951, has always stood here, and we have no intentions of
> leaving.
>
> So I am just here to say - yes, in my backyard, I support the HCA, I
> support Codman road being included as one of the subdistricts.
>
> Every town can do a small part to support more housing inventory and every
> town can do a small part to allow more housing near public transportation.
>
> I’m not looking to engage in any LincolnTalk back and forth on my thoughts
> on this, but if anyone is looking to discuss these topics further offline,
> please feel free to write me an email and we can grab a cup of coffee.
> --
> 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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[Joan Kimball]

Thank you David for your clear message.  I agree with each town doing
their part to help the housing crisis we are facing. And besides, it's the
law.

  Senator Barrett at one point said, we have the jobs and we have workers,
but not adequate housing for them.

 I certainly benefit from other towns' services and businesses.   We are
not living in a vacuum.

  I treasure our town's open space,and as a former Conservation Commission
member when we wrote the Wetland Bylaw, I treasure the services for nature
and for us that our protected wetlands provide. These lands will not be
built upon.  And there will be site reviews.

Joan


* --Thich Nhat Hanh*


On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:32 AM David Onigman 
wrote:

> I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk,
> but after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of the
> Codman Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing Choice Act
> and our road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in.
>
> I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in favor
> of my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals submitted to
> the Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing Choice Act.
>
> I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor of
> the legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in
> Massachusetts, and every town can do their part to contribute a small bit
> to increased inventory to support this issue.
>
> I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a
> frequent user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a one
> car family largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston.
>
> I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as
> close to the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the
> spirit of this legislation, and also what is best for our town planning.
>
> I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise
> children.
>
> Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to change
> that.
>
> I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws
> in certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a good
> thing.
>
> I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small
> commercial center and maintain services like a grocery store need to modify
> a bit of the by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a grocery
> store are sustainable.
>
> Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial
> aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot,
> surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family
> home, built in 1951, has always stood here, and we have no intentions of
> leaving.
>
> So I am just here to say - yes, in my backyard, I support the HCA, I
> support Codman road being included as one of the subdistricts.
>
> Every town can do a small part to support more housing inventory and every
> town can do a small part to allow more housing near public transportation.
>
> I’m not looking to engage in any LincolnTalk back and forth on my thoughts
> on this, but if anyone is looking to discuss these topics further offline,
> please feel free to write me an email and we can grab a cup of coffee.
> --
> 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.

[LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road

[David Onigman]

I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk,
but after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of the
Codman Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing Choice Act
and our road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in.

I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in favor
of my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals submitted to
the Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing Choice Act.

I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor of
the legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in
Massachusetts, and every town can do their part to contribute a small bit
to increased inventory to support this issue.

I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a
frequent user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a one
car family largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston.

I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as close
to the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the spirit of
this legislation, and also what is best for our town planning.

I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise
children.

Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to change
that.

I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws in
certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a good
thing.

I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small commercial
center and maintain services like a grocery store need to modify a bit of
the by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a grocery store are
sustainable.

Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial
aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot,
surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family
home, built in 1951, has always stood here, and we have no intentions of
leaving.

So I am just here to say - yes, in my backyard, I support the HCA, I
support Codman road being included as one of the subdistricts.

Every town can do a small part to support more housing inventory and every
town can do a small part to allow more housing near public transportation.

I’m not looking to engage in any LincolnTalk back and forth on my thoughts
on this, but if anyone is looking to discuss these topics further offline,
please feel free to write me an email and we can grab a cup of coffee.
-- 
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.