The questions that we have been posted on Lincoln Talk, and directly to the WG, are technical in nature. Both the HCAWG and the CCBC regularly post FAQs on the town website and on LT. In the case of the HCAWG, on Friday they posted the response to only one of the questions on this same forum, but did not address any of the other questions that had been submitted.
I understand there may be open meeting law constrains on *back-and-forth debate* on a platform like this. However, why are the questions submitted any different from those that are regularly answered in FAQSs from many of the town boards? Why do we now have to wait for the forum? I thought the intent of the forum was to weigh in on the different options D1-D3. It will be hard to have an informed conversation at the forum if the technical aspects of those options are not correct and/or clarified. On Oct 29, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Margaret Olson <s...@margaretolson.com> wrote: > > > > *"At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a > response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT.* > > *At risk is any community faith in the process that already seems > fractured. "* > > Michael, > > The open meeting laws require that any deliberations be held in a posted > public meeting. When I respond to posts it is to cite facts and to the > extent possible point people to existing information. The open meeting law > requirements are cumbersome and do make the pace of response slow, and > particularly slow for issues that cross multiple boards as does the HCA. > > All of the HCA materials, including the town's state submission (to date) > and all public presentations, can be found here: > https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group. This > site is updated regularly with new information. Keep in mind that the > boards and committees receive multiple variations on the same questions and > in general address them through the public forums and the town's HCA page. > > I encourage you and others with questions to come to one of the forums on > November 8th: at 8am in the town offices or at 7pm on Zoom (registration: > https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZ0lcuuqqj8uGtFZbgFL3Ghr2zR5oH5ZdaVF). > > > Margaret > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:52 AM Michael Dembowski <mjdembow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a >> response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT. >> At risk is *any* community faith in the process that already seems >> fractured. >> Dialogue is welcome - whether it be acknowledgement of errors, a response >> to each point made, or even an extended invite to David to formally join >> HCAWG. >> Michael Dembowski >> Conant Road >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:09 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.
