These are very serious inaccuracies. Can we please make sure we get full answers before any actions are taken?
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 3:57 PM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > -- Anne Taubes Warner warneran...@gmail.com
-- 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.
