I believe the content of this request sent to members of the HCAWG to be in the general public interest.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Potential grave inconsistency in the model submitted for State approval To: Glass, Jennifer (external) <jlrgl...@mac.com>, Margaret Olson < s...@margaretolson.com>, Hutchinson, Jim <jmhut...@hotmail.com>, Craig Nicholson <craigmnichol...@gmail.com> Cc: Higgins, Timothy S. <higgi...@lincolntown.org>, Vaughn, Paula < vaug...@lincolntown.org> Dear Selects and Planning Board Members, I am directing this email to you directly, not just as copied destinataries, as I have not received a satisfactory response to my previous communications from the Director of Planning. The issues at hand will have a deep impact in the future of our town and as such should be worthy of your full attention. I have rechecked the "Corrected" model that has been uploaded to the HCA website. Other than removing the parcels in Lincoln Rd I identified, the updated model the town has submitted to the State continues to be riddled with the same mistakes and inconsistencies I have already identified: 1. Parcels 161 25 0, 161 27 0 and 161 28 0 continue to be part of our submitted proposal in the Village Center District. None of them were presented to the public or voted by the Boards to be included in Option C to be submitted to the State. *Why are these parcels part of our submitted proposal?* 2. The inconsistency I identified in the Lincoln Woods parcel has not been addressed. The developable area in Lincoln Woods is only 6.2 acres (271,903 sqft), which is different from the denominator used for gross density calculations, which is 7.6 acres. They should be one and the same as we are only excluding wetlands in that parcel. *This is an important issue because we could be undercounting the number of units in our model by 28*. Those 28 units could offset all of the units we have modeled in tens of acres of land across the Codman Rd and Lincoln Rd districts. 3. I fear that our excluded land numbers could be wrong. Column L in each one of the District tabs should be the sum of columns J and K. Instead, those three numbers seem arbitrary in our submitted model. In Lincoln Woods, to give you an example, the "Non-Public excluded Land'' is 686,802 sqft, while the "Total excluded land" is only 605,342 sq ft. *How can "non-public excluded land" (which is a subset of the total) be higher than the "total excluded land"? *I have found similar inconsistencies in the Lincoln Rd district (see below).* If our excluded land numbers are wrong, our modeled unit numbers are wrong as well.* 4. Ms. Olson has offered the argument that the reason for including the DPW in the Codman Rd District was "to make all the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work". I cannot think of any reason why DPW would be included other than contiguity. If that were the case, how could the Village Center represent a single District when it is split in two by the parcel of land owned by the Commonwealth? ( Parcel 161 29 0). *Why is the DPW part of Option C? Is there a plan to develop the DPW?* 5. Besides the DPW our proposal includes parcels amounting to tens of acres of land which do not contribute a single unit towards compliance. The list includes 136, 140 and 150 Lincoln Rd, 0 Ridge (Town of Lincoln), 94, 98 and 108 Codman Rd, 30 Lewis St and several town parcels along the railroad track. *Why are those parcels being included in our proposal?* 6. *Why are we zoning Lincoln Woods at 20 units per acre?* The model only allows us to get credit for 159 units. An 8 unit per acre cap would provide us with the same number of units towards compliance and would reduce the incentive for TCB to evict its tenants and redevelop the parcel to a much more formidable scale. With the 20 units per acre cap, up to 403 units could be built. 7. *When are the models for options D1-3 going to be uploaded to the website? *Judging from what was presented last Tuesday, they suffer from most of the same deficiencies I have identified in Option C. I look forward to your response. I reiterate my offer to assist the WG in the task of reviewing any model before it is sent to the State. Best regards, David Cuetos Weston Rd Lincoln Woods excluded land [image: image.png] Lincoln Rd excluded land [image: image.png] > >>>
-- 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.
