Thank goodness we have all these smart people paying attention. Town leadership - these right to the point questions deserve answers.
Kind Regards, Scott Clary 617-968-5769 Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 8:11 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.
