Open meeting violation is one thing, but more troublesome is the statement that we know because we are in the business of managing the town. I did object and then the "powerbase" started calling me names to oust me. Sarah P and David C and others are trying this time. The same vague response will continue. It is a competition between the lobbyists and the tax-payers. It is the state of the town of Lincoln in the 2000's. I took residence here in 2004 appreciating the green in the town. The Planning Board has no planners, they don't produce any original documents. We do need housing and we should also respond to the general population. But we must deliberate and take public concerns into account. The town should release itself from the developers' control. Regards, Bijoy Misra
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 8:24 AM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> wrote: > Many of us still recall the SLIPIC committee and their numerous open > meeting law violations. > Then it was renamed SLIPAC. > Now HCAWG. > > All groups had the same mission. > And the open meeting law violations continue… > Only difference is that this one has the (unnecessary) urgency of the HCA > to push its agenda (and civico’s wish list). > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 8:17 AM Bijoy Misra <misra.bi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am amazed that no one is speaking a word about the fiasco in the >> previous incarnation of this construction project. The outfit was called >> SLIP South Lincoln Improvement Project. The public meeting might >> have been 2019 Spring. I don't know how they folded. I had to quit. >> Do people recall? >> Bijoy Misra >> >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 5:59 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Peter- >>> 100% agree with all of your points, and I support your nomination of >>> David to the HCAWG. >>> >>> In fact- on Monday when I spoke to Jennifer Glass *The Select board >>> representative on the HCAWG*, she thought the modeled density was the >>> Maximum units allowed. >>> >>> Paula corrected this on Tuesday’s meeting and confirmed that developers >>> are NOT limited by the modeled density. The gross density (entire number of >>> acres multiplied by the maximum number of units permitted in that >>> Subdistrict) plus setbacks and height restrictions is what a developer is >>> limited to. >>> >>> Also, the mall/village center actually has 42’ height restrictions >>> instead of 36’ in other subdistricts. >>> >>> Sarah Postlethwait >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 3:58 PM Peter Buchthal <pbucht...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I believe I speak for many residents that we are all concerned with not >>>> just the problems of our state submission, but with the process, and >>>> messaging of the HCAWG. >>>> >>>> 1) How 18 extra acres of lots were included in our submission to the >>>> State without anyone on the HCAWG, Town Administration or Util Consultants >>>> checking the work. >>>> >>>> 2)* I believe few people in the town understand (I know I didn't until >>>> David's email), that unless we are careful, builders will be able build by >>>> right (without Town approval) up to the maximum number of units which is >>>> total acres including wetlands multiplied by the density factor. * So, >>>> even though Lincoln Woods has just 7 buildable acres, a developer would be >>>> able to build 400+ units (20 acres multiplied by 20 Units per Acre (density >>>> in Option C)). Granted, it may be difficult to build that many, but any >>>> new buildings could be built up to 36 feet tall, which would allow three >>>> floors and parking could be below ground or on the ground floor with two or >>>> three floors above. So, I have learned the modelled number of units is >>>> NOT a maximum but a calculated number that should be used for HCA >>>> compliance purposes only. >>>> >>>> *3) I would like the HCAWG to invite David Cuetos to be a member of the >>>> group to make sure the public is well informed and the submissions are >>>> correct. A healthy debate will only lead to better outcomes for everyone >>>> in the town. * >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Peter Buchthal >>>> Weston Rd >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 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. >>>> >>>> -- >>> 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.
