I attended the Option E open forum today. I admire the effort of the volunteers. I heard that Planning Board is in the process of modifying the Zoning by-laws. This would mean the options are projected to be under the proposed by-law of the future. Can someone clarify? Shouldn't there be more public engagement in changing the by-laws? Regards, Bijoy Misra
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:09 PM Robert Ahlert <robahl...@gmail.com> wrote: > So how can we be expected to vote on Saturday when key information is > contained in ONLY the Zoning Bylaw? > > For example, the section on the Village Center states that only 30-40% of > the ground floor of buildings will have to remain commercial. Is that > still the latest language? Perhaps you can provide the revised language to > the residents because I know it only applies to interior portions of the > parcel and not frontage on Lincoln Rd. This is a critical point. No one > knows what the "mandatory" in mandatory mixed use actually means. It's > only "mandatory" that 30-40% is commercial, the rest can be parking or > units at ground level. > > If Donelan's decides not to renew, wouldn't a "by right'' property owner > (e.g. CIVICO) likely demolish that building and only leave 30-40% of the > ground floor as commercial? Could the developer push out the grocery store > b/c housing is more profitable? I worry we would end up with more of a > mini-mart than a real grocery store > > *Vote Option E, this process needs more time.* > > Rob > 185 Lincoln Rd, Lincoln, MA 01773 > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:43 PM Margaret Olson <s...@margaretolson.com> > wrote: > >> On the draft the planning board was discussing last week at our working >> meeting: >> >> As is common with working drafts, the text of the HCA zoning by-law >> discussed by the planning board at our working meeting included all the >> options the board might consider. The draft has text from planning board >> members, town staff, and town counsel. It is both incomplete and at the >> same time contains multiple approaches to the same problem, only one of >> which will be chosen. The board has not voted on it. It is not possible at >> this point to make any statements about what the zoning does and does not >> include or permit. >> >> I’ll also point out that the errors in the HCA submission to the state >> were inconsequential. They were corrected for completeness but the updates >> did not change anything material. >> >> Margaret >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:56 PM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> The State allows towns rezoning land that can be used towards HCA >>> compliance to require developers to set aside 10% affordable units. In >>> order to request a higher than 10% affordable quota, towns have to submit a >>> feasibility study to the State. As per the guidelines >>> <https://www.mass.gov/info-details/section-3a-guidelines>, the analysis >>> must demonstrate that a reasonable variety of multi-family housing types >>> can be feasibly developed at the proposed affordability levels, taking into >>> account the densities allowed as of right in the district, the dimensional >>> requirements applicable within the district, and the minimum number of >>> parking spaces required. Lincoln hired a third-party to conduct such a >>> study >>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85137/Final-Draft-Lincoln-Econ-Feasility-October-6-2023>, >>> requesting 15% affordable units, but the State denied our request. >>> >>> Could the denial have been a surprise to the authors of the study? >>> >>> The answer is a resounding no. The feasibility analysis included a >>> series of scenarios with deeply negative rates of return (as low as -37%). >>> Anyone who had taken a look at the report ahead of its submission would >>> have known that the State would not grant Lincoln the requested 15%. >>> >>> Was denial the only possible outcome? >>> >>> The answer I believe is also a resounding no. The analysis conception >>> was deeply flawed. A more reasonable set of scenarios would have probably >>> yielded at least 15% affordable units, perhaps even 20%. >>> >>> Why did Lincoln submit a report that would certainly be denied? >>> >>> We enter into the realm of speculation here, but there are only two >>> reasonable explanations: lack of oversight, or satisfaction with the >>> results. >>> >>> Supporting the lack of oversight explanation, there are several >>> instances in which the HCAWG and the Director of Planning have failed to >>> properly oversee the work of consultants. Gross mistakes were made in the >>> model submission to the State prepared by Utile, as well as in the maps >>> presented to the public in which some parcels were not properly represented >>> in the maps used for public discussion. We also know that the economic >>> analysis >>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/79178/LDS-Memorandum-to-the-Town-of-Lincoln-re-Oriole-Landing--3162018-1?bidId=> >>> referenced in the HCAWG’s site, which was prepared by a consultant for >>> Civico at the time it was requesting approval for Oriole Landing, includes >>> unsourced educational costs that severely understate their true value. If >>> proper numbers had been used, the study would have indicated that the >>> development yielded negative fiscal results for the Town. >>> >>> Supporting the explanation that the denial was a satisfactory result for >>> the overseeing parties involved is the fact that throughout this process it >>> has been clear that the RLF is trying to maximize the price of the sale for >>> the Mall, and several members of the HCAWG have been publicly explicit in >>> their support for meeting Civico’s wishes. Loosening affordability >>> requirements would obviously increase the profits for Civico and therefore >>> the price of the sale. Let us remember that certain Planning Board members >>> presented a by-law draft last week that allowed the developer to pay fees >>> in lieu of building affordable units. >>> >>> What are the flawed assumptions exactly? >>> >>> The study runs some internal rates of return (IRR) for a variety of >>> multi-family housing types. The scenarios are divided into for sale >>> developments, and rental developments. The scenarios are also divided by >>> the type of development; there are townhome scenarios and garden style >>> scenarios. Finally scenarios vary by size: 24 units, 45 units, and 120 >>> units. >>> >>> All of the townhome scenarios deliver rates of return that are >>> commensurate with developers’ expectations. The four garden style >>> developments are however deeply problematic. Their IRRs are -37% and -32% >>> for the for sale developments and 2% and -1% for the rentals. Garden style >>> and townhome developments are modeled as costing a similar amount, but >>> townhomes have a unit market price that is approximately 50% higher! >>> Simply, why are the consultants modeling garden style developments when >>> townhomes are so superior economically? No rational developer would ever >>> develop a garden-style development assuming this set of assumptions is >>> remotely accurate. It is important to note that the math for garden style >>> developments would also not work at 0% affordability. >>> >>> Why are the for sale garden style condos so unattractive? >>> >>> The assumptions used by the consultant are highly flawed. First, the set >>> of comps seems quite biased. Why are we taking Cold Brooks in Sudbury as >>> basically the only comp to determine price per unit? If we are taking a >>> comp from a westerly neighbor (Sudbury), why not also take an easterly >>> neighbor (Lexington)? Since prices per square foot for the comps in >>> Lexington >>> <https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8838/Eco-Feasibility-Study-033023?bidId=>, >>> per the consultants admission, are 40% higher than those for Sudbury the >>> result, had we taken an average of the two, which would have been more >>> appropriate, would have changed dramatically. >>> >>> More importantly, Cold Brooks is a new development. It is completely >>> absurd to expect Pulte Homes, the developer of Cold Brooks and a publicly >>> traded company, to start a development expecting negative 30% returns. >>> Clearly the cost per unit used by our consultant is dramatically wrong. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> > > -- > *Robert Ahlert* | *781.738.1069* | robahl...@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. > >
-- 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.
