Excerpted from the Planning Board site:
*The broad mission of the Planning Board is to further the welfare of the
citizens of Lincoln by helping to create and preserve a healthful,
convenient, efficient and attractive community environment. The physical as
well as the social and economic
Rich- I appreciate the apology made in advance, not the narrow literal interpretation of a well-intentioned post. Michael On Oct 29, 2023, at 11:22 AM, Rich Rosenbaum wrote:I very much appreciate your
response, having cherry picked my email as (perhaps) offering a good
primer on civic process
We have been told that our questions will be answered at the forum on the
8th, but there are no meetings posted before then. If these questions
required meetings, there would have to be one on the calendar for the HCAWG
before the 8th and there isn’t. In any case, the questions, technical in
While I get complimentary private mails, I also get mail that
I see events with a jaundiced eye because I was born in a
foreign country. I have difficulty in appreciating since the
same people ran the clown show in 2019. Nobody took
responsibility, the developer's man was running the slides
in
I can't speak to the specific questions you are asking about but one
possible reason for not immediately responding to a question is that it
might require a discussion among members which would trigger the
requirement that 'deliberations' must occur in the context of an open
meeting.
On Sun, Oct
One of the questions we submitted was answered as part of the FAQs that
were sent out by the HCAWG on Friday, but the rest were not. See below for
quote from that email. This question was posed to the HCAWG via email after
any meeting happened, so I don’t believe there is a constraint to wait for
*I understand there may be open meeting law constrains on *back-and-forth
debate* on a platform like this. However, why are the questions submitted
any different from those that are regularly answered in FAQSs from many of
the town boards? Why do we now have to wait for the forum?*
>From
ing Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>> TCB
>>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>>requirement ends in 2032.
>>>- Why ar
*I very much appreciate your response, having cherry picked my email as
(perhaps) offering a good primer on civic process here in Lincoln. I find
it helpful to have this be on LT to help inform and remind all. *
from Wikipedia:
> *Cherry picking*, *suppressing evidence*, or the *fallacy of
Margaret - I very much appreciate your response, having cherry picked my email as (perhaps) offering a good primer on civic process here in Lincoln. I find it helpful to have this be on LT to help inform and remind all. Sincerely Michael DembowskiConant Road On Oct 29, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Margaret
so many parcels that give us no compliance
>>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>>is required for compliance?
>>
>> Karla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: ٍSarah Postl
gt;
>>>>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Karla Gravis
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of details here (which I encourage everyone to read)
>>>>> but 3 very important questions re
What is the precedent, if any, for adding new WG members mid-stream!? I agree we need David’s acumen.Kathleen Lomatoski klomato...@gmail.comOn Oct 28, 2023, at 7:05 PM, Scott Clary wrote:Please - David Cuetos for HCAWG. Unless Our Town leaders are playing dumb to move their agenda forward, David
18 more acres in parcels to the State than what
>>>>was approved by town boards for Option C?
>>>> - Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>>
s to the State than what
>>>>was approved by town boards for Option C?
>>>>- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>>> TCB
>>>>or an
>
>>>>
>>>>- Why did we submit 18 more acres in parcels to the State than what
>>>>was approved by town boards for Option C?
>>>> - Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incenti
- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>> TCB
>>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>>requirement ends in 2032.
>
the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>>is required for compliance?
>>
>> Karla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait
>>> Date: Thu, Oct
boards for Option C?
>>>>- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>>> TCB
>>>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current aff
r compliance?
>
> Karla
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait
>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted
>> to the St
- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>> TCB
>>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>>requirement ends in 2032.
>&g
>>>>- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>>> TCB
>>>> or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>>>requirement ends in 2032.
>>>
by town boards for Option C?
>>>>>> Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher number of
>>>>>> units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for TCB or
>>>>>> another developer to come in and rebuild? The curr
t;>>was approved by town boards for Option C?
>>>>- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>>> TCB
>>>>or another develop
I attended the last forum, which had 45 minutes for open questions. Apparently none of the people have been so voluble on Lincoln talk attended that meeting. There are several more meetings which are largely Feedback meetings, so I hope you guys will attend and ask your questions.Ruth Ann(She,
;- Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher
>>>number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for
>>> TCB
>>>or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability
>>>requirement ends in 2032.
>
032.
>>>- Why are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance
>>>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>>>is required for compliance?
>>>
>>> Karla
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>&
uired for compliance?
>
> Karla
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait
>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted
>> to the St
any more units than
>is required for compliance?
>
> Karla
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait
>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submi
I do not see accusations or conspiracy theories advanced here.Rather there is an effort to get answers and have a better understanding of what we are being asked to endorse.As there have been limited opportunities to fully engage, those with questions must resort to the platform
y are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance
>>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>>is required for compliance?
>>
>> Karla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarde
Michael, et al.Remember, Jennifer explicitly said at the last “ forum” they could not respond to LT as it violated Open Meeting Law…we needed to send them private communications and meet with the.I would send emails to the entire board, and Cc staff.Do not accept responses from staff, except on
arcels that give us no compliance
>>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>>is required for compliance?
>>
>> Karla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message -
>>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait
&
are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance
>credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units than
>is required for compliance?
>
> Karla
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message -
>> From: ٍSarah Po
Good questions Karla! We need someone to ask these questions at the board meeting! WHO will do it?SusannaOn Oct 27, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Karla Gravis wrote:There are a lot of details here (which I encourage everyone
to read) but 3 very important questions require answers:Why did we submit 18 more
developers to build many more units than is
required for compliance?
Karla
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait
> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted to
> the State
> T
Dear neighbors,
With so many analytical people in our resident pool willing to give time
and service, I have never understood why there is a perpetual affinity
to external consultants. Through my brief observations, I found the
"consultant' was a cover for some fabricated thinking.
I suspect
It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with
these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this
many inaccuracies.
What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the
HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August-
I know that town employees cannot respond via Lincoln Talk. But this needs
a response somehow from the town. If true, this would be extremely
concerning about the process and procedures.
> *Executive Summary:*
> - I identified a series of mistakes in the Option C proposal submitted
> to the
*Executive Summary:*
- I identified a series of mistakes in the Option C proposal submitted
to the State for compliance check. Option C as presented in the SOTT and
approved by the Boards for submission rezoned 70 acres of land. The model
that was sent to the State rezoned 88 acres,
40 matches
Mail list logo
