We have been told that our questions will be answered at the forum on the 8th, but there are no meetings posted before then. If these questions required meetings, there would have to be one on the calendar for the HCAWG before the 8th and there isn’t. In any case, the questions, technical in nature, should not trigger a meeting.
Most of the questions focus around potential mistakes/inaccuracies in the model that we submitted to the State. Just like some of the mistakes have already been acknowledged and corrected by Utile, the other concerns should be addressed before the forum. How would we properly have a discussion on the 8th if the underlying data is not accurate? 1. The Village Center district in the model submitted to the State is different from what was approved by the boards on October 10th. The maps changed *after* the approval meeting - additional parcels were colored in yellow and the corresponding acreage was changed without any explanation nor deliberation. Given the maps themselves changed, this cannot be attributed to a rounding error. 2. We are including many parcels that provide 0 units towards compliance, like the DPW, which are not necessary for contiguity. 3. 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 submitted to the State 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. 4. The excluded area numbers in the model continue to be inaccurate across a couple of districts. On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 1:41 PM Rich Rosenbaum <s...@bcdef.com> wrote: > I can't speak to the specific questions you are asking about but one > possible reason for not immediately responding to a question is that it > might require a discussion among members which would trigger the > requirement that 'deliberations' must occur in the context of an open > meeting. > > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 1:17 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> One of the questions we submitted was answered as part of the FAQs that >> were sent out by the HCAWG on Friday, but the rest were not. See below for >> quote from that email. This question was posed to the HCAWG via email after >> any meeting happened, so I don’t believe there is a constraint to wait for >> a meeting to send out FAQs. >> >> The email posted on LT says this in reference to the question we >> submitted: >> “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.”. >> >> The FAQs states that there was indeed a mistake made by Utile in the >> excel model submitted to the State, which was corrected after residents >> brought it up. >> >> The CCBC and HCAWG regularly post FAQs on their website and LT. They are >> also able to answer questions via email to residents, like Ms. Jennifer >> Glass is kindly offering in that quote above. Ms. Olson regularly posts in >> regards to technical questions. All these questions are technical. >> >> It is crucial we have the answers before the forum so we can have an >> informed discussion. >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:57 PM Rich Rosenbaum <s...@bcdef.com> wrote: >> >>> *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?* >>> >>> From >>> https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2017/09/25/2017%20Guide%20only.pdf: >>> >>> The Open Meeting Law defines deliberation as “an oral or written >>>> >>> communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or >>>> among a >>>> quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.” >>> >>> >>> Note that the expression of an opinion on matters within the body’s >>>> jurisdiction >>>> to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public >>>> body member >>>> responds. >>>> >>> >>>> Except in cases of emergency, a public body must provide the public >>>> with notice >>>> of its meeting 48 hours in advance, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and >>>> legal holidays. >>>> >>> >>> I think most (all?) of the FAQs are distributed after meetings (that >>> conformed to the Open Meeting Law). >>> >>> Rich >>> (still not a lawyer, but at this point considering applying to law >>> school) >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 12:40 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
-- 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.
