Easy to lob accusations and perhaps even some conspiracy theories on LT where the members of the HCAWG cannot respond.
Perhaps there was an error on the submission but a more appropriate forum to query this would be in either of the two open forums on November 8 that have been widely publicized. Questions and answers on the record. John On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 8:53 AM Michael Dembowski <mjdembow...@gmail.com> wrote: > At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a > response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT. > At risk is *any* community faith in the process that already seems > fractured. > Dialogue is welcome - whether it be acknowledgement of errors, a response > to each point made, or even an extended invite to David to formally join > HCAWG. > Michael Dembowski > Conant Road > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:09 AM Susanna Szeto <szeto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good questions Karla! We need someone to ask these questions at the >> board meeting! WHO will do it? >> >> Susanna >> >> On Oct 27, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> 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 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 TCB >> or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability >> requirement ends in 2032. >> - 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 >> >> >> >> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> >>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16 >>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted >>> to the State >>> To: David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> >>> CC: Lincoln Talk <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> >>> >>> >>> It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with >>> these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this >>> many inaccuracies. >>> What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the >>> HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August- right after >>> the guideline changes were announced and before option C was formed. No >>> meetings were held in September and the two October meetings were multi >>> board meeting presentations. >>> >>> *Is the full HCAWG reviewing the current proposals and what is being >>> submitted to the state?* >>> >>> Including an additional 18 acres of land in the state proposal that has >>> not been presented to the town and the Select board and planning board is >>> unacceptable. >>> >>> *The HCAWG needs disbanded for the following reasons:* >>> •2 members are representing the best interest of the RLF LLC (aka >>> trying to get the highest density possible allowed by right so they can >>> sell the property to Civico for more money). >>> •The proposals presented to the town all include unnecessary land that >>> does not count towards the HCA compliance target. >>> •Option C has been submitted to the state with this many inconsistencies >>> that has been pointed out by David, and 18 acres of land being added that >>> were not approved by the Select board or Planning board or the town. >>> •The Open meeting law has been violated numerous times by the HCAWG; and >>> a meeting mentioned in the select board minutes is missing from the HCAWG >>> minutes page entirely. >>> >>> >>> Better ways to comply with the HCA have been proposed. Stop rushing to >>> get a RLF centric rezoning passed and get a better Working group in place. >>> >>> *This rezoning is going to shape the future decades of Lincoln- let’s do >>> it thoughtfully and purposefully. * >>> >>> >>> Sarah Postlethwait >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:37 AM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *Executive Summary:* >>>> >>>> >>>> - I identified a series of mistakes in the Option C proposal >>>> submitted to the State for compliance check. Option C as presented in >>>> the >>>> SOTT and approved by the Boards for submission rezoned 70 acres of land. >>>> The model that was sent to the State rezoned 88 acres, 18 acres more. >>>> After >>>> reviewing with our consultant Utile, the mistakes were confirmed by our >>>> Director of Planning. For reference, the State is asking us to rezone 42 >>>> acres. >>>> - The model sent to the State states the maximum number of units >>>> that can be built in Lincoln as a result of the rezoning is 1,679. The >>>> State is asking for 635 units. >>>> - The HCAWG’s decision to include so many parcels near wetlands is >>>> the main reason for this very high number of units. >>>> - Public land, for example the DPW, is unnecessarily included in >>>> our option C proposal. This has the impact of lowering our gross >>>> density, >>>> which is one of the State's requirements. >>>> - Options C and D1-D3 create an incentive for massive redevelopment >>>> of Lincoln Woods. This could be avoided with no impact to compliance. It >>>> seems that the density denominator used for Lincoln Woods is wrong as >>>> well. >>>> - Options D1-D3 presented last night rezone 60-75 acres and could >>>> also lead to >1,000 units built. >>>> - More foresight has been applied to the proposals our resident >>>> group has prepared: the maximum number of units built is exactly the >>>> same >>>> as the compliance requirement (~635). 7 of these proposals have more >>>> than >>>> 20% units near Lincoln Station. >>>> >>>> *Findings* >>>> >>>> Following multiple requests by residents over the past week, the HCAWG >>>> finally released the Option C submission to the public yesterday. The >>>> details of the model were surprising: *about 18 more acres of land >>>> were included in what was sent to the State than what was presented to the >>>> public and approved by the Boards. A number of parcels along Lincoln Rd >>>> that were never part of any district presented to the public were added to >>>> our submitted proposal*. While the parcels do not provide credit >>>> towards compliance, their inclusion would lead to up to ~325 incremental >>>> units given the unit per acre cap. >>>> >>>> I alerted the Director of Planning of the discrepancy. After she >>>> checked with our consultant, Utile, I was informed that the inclusion of >>>> those parcels had been a mistake. This revelation raises a few questions: >>>> >>>> >>>> - *Are we submitting rezoning proposals to the State prepared by a >>>> third party without reviewing them?* >>>> - *Is there someone in the Administration or the HCAWG who has >>>> studied the model and understands how it works?* >>>> - *Who is driving the decisions about our district design? Utile or >>>> appointed officials?* >>>> >>>> The State uses a very basic model to calculate the maximum building >>>> footprint of any parcel. First, any wetlands are excluded. Then, 20% of the >>>> gross acreage is also taken out as “open land”. Finally, 45% of the >>>> remainder is considered parking spaces – note the irony that we are >>>> fantasizing about a car-free neighborhood and the State is assuming parking >>>> space will take almost as much land as the buildings*. It is extremely >>>> punitive to include parcels with a big wetland presence. Either Utile did >>>> not communicate the message or our WG/staff did not digest it, as we could >>>> not have come up with a more wetland-heavy district.* >>>> >>>> Option C includes *over 40 acres of parcels for which we get no credit >>>> from the State*, which we could drop from our proposal with no >>>> repercussions. We are *unnecessarily including 6 acres of public land, >>>> even conservation land, most of which is the DPW, which could have been >>>> left out altogether.* Including all that unnecessary public land >>>> lowers our gross density. It is important to note that just because the >>>> State does not give us credit in modeling does not mean that those parcels >>>> could not be developed at some future date to the maximum number of units >>>> per acre they have been rezoned to, perhaps in combination with other >>>> parcels. >>>> >>>> There are more surprises. Option C would allow TCB, the owner of >>>> Lincoln Woods, to build up to 403 units in that parcel. It is important to >>>> understand that the maximum number of units per acre applies to all the >>>> land in a parcel, not just the developable land. *TCB could in time >>>> evict all tenants, tear down all of the 125 two-story semi-detached housing >>>> units, and build one or more massive three-story buildings in their parcel >>>> with a lot more units.* The fact that the affordability restriction >>>> for Lincoln Woods ends in 2032 makes that possibility all the more real. >>>> This threat can be avoided if the WG puts a cap of 7 or 8 units per acre >>>> rather than 20. The Town gets absolutely no compliance benefit from having >>>> that higher cap since it is only modeling 159 units. *Why are we >>>> rezoning Lincoln Woods at 20 units per acre if we get no additional credit >>>> from it?* It is worth noting that the developable land in Lincoln >>>> Woods had been presented as 7.0, last night it jumped to 7.6, but if we >>>> look at the model submitted it only adds up to 6.2. It looks like either >>>> the number of units calculated for Lincoln Wood or the gross density are >>>> wrong. >>>> >>>> Putting it all together, we get an alarming vision of the >>>> potentialities of the rezoning exercise. The table below is a screenshot >>>> from the model submitted. *Up to 1,679 units could be built within 0.5 >>>> miles of Lincoln Station*. That is 80% of the existing total number of >>>> units in Lincoln (ex. Hanscom). I realize this is a worst-case scenario, >>>> by *why >>>> are we even talking about this risk?* All of this can be avoided if a >>>> little bit more thought is applied to the proposals. >>>> <image.png> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Proposals D1-D3 presented last night suffer from the same >>>> deficiencies. All of them would enable up to well over 1,000 units built in >>>> Lincoln.* >>>> >>>> *The proposals our group of concerned residents put together and have >>>> presented to the WG, PB and SB do not have any of these problems. The >>>> modeled capacity of our proposals, 7 of which have more than 20% of units >>>> and land in Lincoln Station, exactly matches the maximum number of units >>>> that could be built.* >>>> >>>> David Cuetos >>>> >>>> Weston Rd >>>> >>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>> Browse the archives at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>> >>>> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > 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.
