Thank you for uploading the slides.Thank you also for answering one of the questions that were submitted. I am glad to hear that Utile has corrected one of the discrepancies we identified in the model.
There are still other discrepancies that were submitted earlier in the week that have not been addressed. I apologize for the push, but it is important that residents have sound information leading into the November 8th forums. We would be happy to meet in person to discuss. 1. The Village Center district presented on Tuesday is different from what was presented at SOTT and approved by the Boards for submission on 10/10. It cannot be attributed to a rounding error. It can be seen in the slides that new parcels have been colored in yellow in the district map and the acreage listed in the table is approximately one acre higher over what was approved in the public meeting. *How was that decided? Are there internal meetings where such decisions are made?* 2. The DPW question many of us have posed remains unanswered. We get no credit for that lot from a compliance perspective and we don't need it in the model. *Why is DPW included in Option C? Is there a redevelopment plan?* 3. Lincoln Woods is currently zoned at 20 units per acre for a maximum of 403 units, but we only get credit for 159 from the State. Ms. Vaughn confirmed that developers are not limited to the modeled capacity, they are only limited to the maximum capacity, as long as the developers abide by the setbacks and height restrictions. We would meet compliance if we zoned Lincoln Woods at 8 units per acre. *Why are we taking the extra risk of potential redevelopment (and resident eviction) by zoning LW at 20 units per acre?* 4. Option C 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?* 5. The data in the model for Lincoln Woods continues to be inaccurate. *The slides show 7.6 acres of developable land at Lincoln Woods, but the model only shows 6.2. The reason this is very important is because we could be undercounting units at LW by 18%. *This undercounting can lead us to overzone in other areas. 6. Option C unnecessarily includes 6 acres of public land. Any parcel rezoned under the HCA can be redeveloped with only 10% affordable units. Instead of including those under HCA, *why not develop them at our own discretion with a higher affordability requirement?* 7. The revised option C model could lead up to 1,370 being built in Lincoln Station. The cap is so high that we put ourselves at risk of many more units being built over the 639 modeled figure. *Why wasn't there a focused effort to ensure that the maximum number of units would match the modeled number? The proposals we have submitted are able to accomplish this.* 8. The excluded area numbers in the model continue to be inaccurate across a couple of districts. Please see below for screenshots. I have shared these questions individually as well. Thank you, Karla [image: image.png] [image: image.png] > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > *From:* Jennifer Glass via Lincoln <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> > *To:* LincolnTalk <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> > *Sent:* Friday, October 27, 2023 at 04:07:27 PM EDT > *Subject:* [LincolnTalk] HCA Slides from the 10/24 + link to meeting > video + more answers to FAQs > > Good afternoon, > > Thank you all for your patience in waiting for the slides from Tuesday’s > meeting. > > We know that there were questions about some of the numbers, and we wanted > to make sure we could go through the information with our consultants at > Utile before publishing the slides. > > This is the phase of the process when we are getting down to details such > as how many decimal places are we going to use in the calculations. There > were some instances where numbers were being rounded inconsistently, and > those have been fixed. > > *It is important to note that while the numbers on these slides may be > slightly different from what you see if you watch the video, the changes > had no impact on the land included or the structure of the different > options. ALL are compliant and can be summarized as follows:* > > > - *Option C: * The entire district is within 1/2 mile of the MBTA > train station. > - *Option D1: * Reduces the Codman Road subdistrict substantially; > slight reduction to the Lincoln Road subdistrict; adds Lincoln North as a > subdistrict. > - *Option D2: *Reduces the Codman Road subdistrict substantially; > slight reduction to the Lincoln Road subdistrict; adds Battle Road Farm as > a subdistrict. > - *Option D3: *Eliminates Codman Road subdistrict; slight reduction > to the Lincoln Road subdistrict; adds Battle Road Farm as a subdistrict. > > > The slides and link to the meeting recording are below and also posted on > the HCAWG page: > https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group. > > *Please join us at one of the Community Forums on Wednesday, November 8th!* > > - *8:00 AM - 10:00 AM: Donaldson Room at Town Offices* > - *7:00 PM - 9:00 PM: Virtual, via Zoom. Register for the meeting > at: * > > https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0lcuuqqj8uGtFZbgFL3Ghr2zR5oH5ZdaVF > > > Also below is information that Conservation Director, Michele Grzenda, > provided about wildlife corridors. You can hear what she said about this > and wetlands buffers on the recording. > > Finally, there have been questions about whether Option C had excess land. > The answer to that is below and with other FAQs on the website. > > As always, if you have specific questions, reach out individually. > > We look forward to seeing you on the 8th! > > - Jennifer for the HCAWG Outreach Team > > > Link to recording: > https://cloud.castus.tv/vod/lincoln/video/653aaa9262e4d80008b6ad96?page=RECENT > > > *Will increased development near Lincoln station, Lewis Street, and Codman > Road disrupt a wildlife corridor?* > > *The Answer is No. * > > Increasing the overall density of residential housing on existing > developed or partially developed areas will not materially change wildlife > movement. > > Wildlife biologists and conservations use the term wildlife corridor to > refer to vital areas necessary for animals to fly, swim, and run from their > breeding, feeding, and wintering habitats. Fortunately, much of Lincoln’s > wildlife has mastered movement through a suburban landscape. Even bears > and moose have made their way from western MA to Concord, Lincoln, > Lexington, and Weston. > > The bigger factors which affect wildlife movement in Lincoln (and other > towns) are the existing roadways/highways, physical barriers (e.g., jersey > barriers, chain link fences). Lincoln can reduce further impacts on > wildlife moving by locating future housing in previously developed areas > and avoiding construction in wetlands and large unfragmented > fields/forests. The current HCA proposal is mindful of this. > > Three official and well-researched studies and documents which help local > planners, Commission members and community members plan conservation > efforts include: > > · MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program > > · BIOMap which is a collaboration of The Nature Conservancy and the > MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. BioMap guides strategic protection > and stewardship of lands and waters that are most important for conserving > biological diversity in Massachusetts. > > · Sudbury Valley Trustees’ SuAsCo Regional Prioritization Plan. The > Habitat for Biodiversity theme focuses on significant blocks of aquatic, > wetland, vernal pool, and forest habitat; areas of uninterrupted interior > forest; priority natural communities; natural communities that are > underrepresented in preserved lands; rare and endangered species habitat; > migration corridors; and climate resiliency. > > > > In reviewing these maps, the main area that is arguably a corridor goes > roughly along the river near the Farrar Pond Village condo area (darker > green in the attached BioMap for Lincoln). Concord has three wildlife > tunnels that go under Rt 2 in that area. There is also an area around Goose > Pond (and the fourth wildlife tunnel under Rt 2 is located there, and it is > also considered a priority habitat) but as you will see from the attached > maps these are not near the town center nor do they connect to it. > > > The 40% of Lincoln which is permanently protected provides important food, > water, and shelter for wildlife. To Quote Lincoln’s 2017 Open Space and > Recreation Plan: > > *Lincoln’s pioneering conservation efforts and smart development planning > have been recognized at regional, national, and international levels. The > extraordinary inventory of existing open space is a result of the > cooperative efforts of public and private organizations and many > individuals working together over the long-term to achieve the vision of a > “town that cherishes its rural, agricultural character, small-town > heritage, open space, and historical legacy.” The product of these efforts > is a rich resource of conservation land that secures important trail > connections, provides recreational opportunities, maintains wildlife > corridors, preserves farmland, and conserves critical habitat.* > > Rezoning existing developed and partially developed areas in town near > public transportation is an example of smart development planning and will > not infringe upon Lincoln’s conservation efforts. > > > *Potential Excess Land in Submitted Model:* > > There was a small oversight which does not substantively alter Option C > nor does it cause any compliance issues. The key points are as follows: > > 1. The parcels identified (128, 127, 131, 133, and 0 Lincoln Rd) were > initially included in the Lincoln Rd / Lewis St. Subdistrict but were later > removed because they contained a negligible amount of developable land and > thus yielded no units (17 acres of the 17.17 acres covered by these parcels > is excluded land and thus does not contribute towards modeled unit > capacity). > 2. Utile failed to catch that these parcels had not been deleted from > the parcel list included in the District 2 tab, which is the reason for the > discrepancy. > 3. *Correcting this discrepancy does not create any compliance issues. > It has no impact on the reported number of units or acreage of the > subdistricts included in Option C, but it does result in a small > increase in overall density from 15.3 to 15.5. * > > > > -- > 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.
