Would you support the Village Center rezoning in March if it came to town meeting separately?
Margaret Olson made clear in her post yesterday the by-laws you cite in your final paragraph are in the earliest stages of discussion so to insinuate that such a building on the Doherty's property "could be built" on that site is a bit of a stretch at this point. Though if it is, I wouldn't mind downsizing to a nice west-facing apartment with a view of Codman Farm one day. :-) John On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 8:00 PM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am going to attach the email I sent to the Director of Planning, > Jennifer Glass and Utile a few days ago at the bottom. I don't think there > is any ambiguity in the wording of the guidelines and believe option E as > sent would be compliant. However, we do not want to get bogged down on this > issue. There is one simple fix to ensure contiguity, which we have offered > repeatedly to the HCAWG, both in public meetings and via email. As per the > email Sarah Postlethwait sent to LincolnTalk and Jennifer Glass last night > in response to Jennifer's email, we are adding 2 Lewis St to Option E. It > would have been more reasonable for Jennifer and Paula to contact us before > posting that public notice and it would have been in keeping with Jim > Hutchinson's public request that technical non-compliance issues for > resident's proposals would be parsimoniously fixed. > > I disagree with the characterization that option E is minimally compliant. > Option E would allow for 113 units built (this excludes Battle Road Farm) > an amount that is equivalent as a % of our existing units to Brookline's > approved HCA proposal. Brookline's proposal was widely celebrated as a > successful compromise between opposing groups. This doesn't even take into > consideration the fact that the Village Center District rezoning would be > presented separately at Town Meeting if Option E is chosen. There are > options we could have presented which would have led to zero units > developed as of right, but we decided not to do that because we want to put > forward a compromise option that can satisfy as many residents as possible. > > I want to make clear that excluding N Lewis was not part of our original > mission. It was actually a request from the Historical Society. A lot of us > would have been comfortable including it, but we also realized that there > is a good deal of fungibility in designing options. There are clearly folks > in town who care deeply about our history, so we saw no particular harm in > rezoning other properties instead. We could have dropped all of Lewis St, > but that would have meant that Option E would have tilted perhaps too far > for some in the no development by right direction. > > As to your point regarding development encroaching Codman Farm. I think > there is a big difference between what we propose and options C-D. The > biggest difference is that no re-development would occur at Doherty's, > which is obviously the closest parcel to Codman Farm. Under the by-laws > discussed for options C-D, a 48' 4-story building could be placed on that > site. The same could occur at the Mall. The other difference is that for > the Lincoln Rd/ Lewis St district we are a) limiting the height at 36' > rather than 42' as per the by-laws discussed, and b) increasing the setback > to 25' from 15'. > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:12 AM Carl Angiolillo <carlangioli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I appreciate Karla's clarifications, and her interpretation of the act >> seems reasonable, however the wording is indeed ambiguous so I think there >> is a possibility that the EOHLC could choose to interpret it differently. >> (As evidenced by the recent email from Jennifer Glass) >> >> However, this part of the explanation particularly stuck out to me: >> >> > The only impact of having a discontiguous piece of Lincoln Rd that is >> less than 5 acres is that those 2.7 acres do not count towards our minimum >> requirement of 42. This is not an issue as option E adds up to 56.9 acres >> not including the 2.7. >> >> In that case I am unsure why those four non-contributing lots were >> included in Option E. It seems like it would have been simpler to exclude >> all of Lewis street and then pick up another fifty or so units of modeled >> multi-family capacity by adding a couple units per acre at Battle Road >> Farm, especially if these are unlikely to be built anyway as per the >> Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternative website. >> >> First, objections levied against Options C and D (including from LRHA >> supporters) included the specter of multi-story buildings overlooking >> Codman Farm and the sensitive environment in and around the Codman Corner >> area. Including North Lewis seems to subject option E to the same >> objections. >> >> Second, even if one is reasonably confident that the EOHLC will permit >> discontinuous subdistricts, that still leaves a small chance they will not, >> potentially forcing the inclusion of the historic Lewis Street lots. >> >> Third, the LRHA group seems to have given thoughtful consideration to >> each area included or excluded, and my sense is that otherwise Option E has >> been intelligently designed to be minimally compliant in order to retain as >> much town control as possible. In that light, including additional acreage >> seems out of place. >> >> Note that I'm not arguing against including these lots; on balance I >> personally lean towards including them as well as the rest of Lewis Street. >> I'm just working my way through all the compliance options and trying to >> better understand the factors behind the decisions. >> >> Carl >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 10:02 AM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> *Question 1* >>> >>> The guidelines allow for the setup in Option E. There is no need for the >>> Lincoln Rd/Lewis St parcels to be contiguous. The Compliance Model User >>> Guide shows an example that deals directly with the same contiguity point >>> we are discussing. >>> >>> https://www.mass.gov/doc/compliance-model-user-guide/download >>> >>> >>> District 1 is comparable to our Lincoln Rd in that the (sub)district is >>> made up of non-contiguous pieces, yet when calculating contiguity district >>> 1a is added to district 2. In our example, Lincoln Rd east of the tracks is >>> added to Ryan Estate and to Lincoln Woods, which gives us a total of 32.7 >>> acres of contiguous land in the multi-family district, well over 50% of the >>> total. >>> >>> Part of the confusion comes from the loose use of the words district and >>> subdistrict found in the User Guide, which has also permeated the WG’s >>> exposition. It is important to note that when the guidelines talk of >>> “multi-family zoning district”, it is the entire HCA district. The >>> guidelines only provide a definition of district as “multi-family zoning >>> district”: >>> >>> *“Multi-family zoning district” means a zoning district, including a >>> base district or an overlay district, in which multi-family housing is >>> allowed as of right; provided that the district shall be in a fixed >>> location or locations, and shown on a map that is part of the zoning >>> ordinance or by-law.* >>> >>> While there are more than a hundred uses of the word district as in >>> “multi-family zoning district”, there is only mention of “subdistrict” in >>> the entire guidelines, which is found in 5.c, and deals with an unrelated >>> issue: >>> >>> *(i) the unit capacity of residential dwelling units in the mixed-use >>> development district or subdistrict (as calculated by EOHLC using a >>> methodology similar to that in section 5(d) which takes into account the >>> impact of non-residential uses),* >>> >>> It is a bit unfortunate that the EOHLC did not define what they meant >>> by subdistrict, but it does not really matter to our purposes. >>> >>> Armed with the proper definition of the word district as used in the >>> guidelines, we can now check the only contiguity requirement, found in >>> 5.a.(ii): >>> >>> *In all cases, at least half of the multi-family zoning district land >>> areas must comprise contiguous lots of land. No portion of the district >>> that is less than 5 contiguous acres land will count toward the minimum >>> size requirement. If the multi-family unit capacity and gross density >>> requirements can be achieved in a district of fewer than 5 acres, then the >>> district must consist entirely of contiguous lots.* >>> >>> Option E’s multi-family zoning district is more than half contiguous. >>> The only impact of having a discontiguous piece of Lincoln Rd that is less >>> than 5 acres is that those 2.7 acres do not count towards our minimum >>> requirement of 42. This is not an issue as option E adds up to 56.9 acres >>> not including the 2.7. >>> >>> *Question 2* >>> >>> When an area is included in HCA there is a probability of redevelopment. >>> Once a district is rezoned, in this case to 18 units/acre, the value of >>> tearing down the buildings and redeveloping increases. By including this >>> historic district as part of HCA rezoning, there is an enhanced risk that >>> those historic buildings will be lost to redevelopment. >>> >>> It would be useful for the Chair of the Historical Commission, who is >>> also a member of the WG to clarify the WG's stance. Are the buildings worth >>> protecting or not? If they are worth protecting, they should not be >>> included as the risk of tear down and redevelopment increases. The only >>> reasonable explanation seems to be that the WG considers the redevelopment >>> of these parcels to be of greater utility than the historical value of said >>> buildings. >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: Carl Angiolillo <carlangioli...@gmail.com> >>>> Date: Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 08:21 >>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Mass. Investment in Communities that Build >>>> Around Commuter Rail Stations >>>> To: ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> >>>> CC: Lincoln Talk <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> I love learning new things about town and appreciate Sarah's attachment >>>> with the history of Lewis St. But it also raises a few questions. >>>> >>>> > North Lewis was excluded [from Option E] at the request of the >>>> Lincoln Historical Society since every property on the North side of Lewis >>>> is considered Historical >>>> >>>> First, omitting the historic lots (e.g. the building with the Clark >>>> Gallery, the Food Project building, 14 Lewis, and the Pickle Factory >>>> buildings) seems to make the lots across the street on the south/west side >>>> of Lewis St discontinuous with the rest of the subdistrict. Does that >>>> present a compliance issue for Option E? (I recall the Housing Choice Act >>>> Working Group including a few lots in Options C and D primarily for >>>> continuity reasons.) >>>> >>>> Second, does rezoning a historic building under the HCA reduce it's >>>> protection and if so to what degree? >>>> >>>> Third, did the Lincoln Historical Society (Sara Mattes et al) or anyone >>>> else make a similar request to the Housing Choice Act Working Group to omit >>>> these lots from options C and D and if so what was the reason for including >>>> them anyway? >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> Codman Rd >>>> >>>> P.S. Apologies if these questions have already been answered, I am not >>>> confident I have read all of the emails flying back and forth. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 9:05 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> My parcel is included in every single proposal from the HCAWG and >>>>> option E. I am affected if every single option gets passed. And if I >>>>> fought to exclude my land you would call me a NIMBY (as many already >>>>> have). >>>>> >>>>> I do not look forward to the implications of being rezoned and having >>>>> properties being sold around me affecting my property value and raising my >>>>> taxes, but I am willing to do so to avoid having something as drastic as >>>>> option C to be passed, which allows over 1100 units to be built in south >>>>> Lincoln. >>>>> >>>>> Both North and South Lewis Street were included in option E originally >>>>> since Lewis Street has been discussed to be rezoned for decades AND it’s >>>>> included in every other proposal from the town. However North Lewis was >>>>> excluded at the request of the Lincoln Historical Society since every >>>>> property on the North side of Lewis is considered Historical. >>>>> >>>>> If you would like to learn more about the historical significance of >>>>> North Lewis Street, I would highly recommend the attached article. >>>>> >>>>> Sarah Postlethwait >>>>> >>>>> Lewis Street >>>>> >>>>> Proponent of option E >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 7:30 PM Lis Herbert <lisherb...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It would likewise be much more transparent for proponents of E to >>>>>> identify themselves and their respective properties within the boundaries >>>>>> that have been drawn on Lewis Street, which appear to comprise just a >>>>>> handful of lots. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 22, 2023, at 6:32 PM, ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you also speaking as a member of Fin comm? >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be much more transparent if members of town boards would >>>>>> include their respective board in their email signature when commenting >>>>>> on >>>>>> town matters in LincolnTalk (especially when voicing your own biased >>>>>> opinion). >>>>>> >>>>>> It’s also worth noting that we are currently in compliance, and will >>>>>> be for all of 2024 and qualify for all the funds being discussed. >>>>>> If our water mains can’t last a couple more months after December >>>>>> 2024 until the town is able to make an informed decision, then why >>>>>> haven’t >>>>>> we applied for these funds now while we are still in compliance? >>>>>> >>>>>> This rush towards December 2024 is unnecessary. Especially when 4 >>>>>> story 48’ buildings with no lot limits (besides 25’ setbacks) at the mall >>>>>> are being discussed in planning board meetings… >>>>>> >>>>>> Sarah Postlethwait >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:47 PM Rich Rosenbaum <s...@bcdef.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *It’s a little like asking us to make a YUGE leap of faith.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An alternative would be to take a different leap of faith that none >>>>>>> of the following happen: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - we end up delaying so much that we miss the deadline for complying >>>>>>> - we no longer qualify for state funding for needed repairs and >>>>>>> replacement of our past-the-expiration-date water mains >>>>>>> - we end up with a bond to pay for a very, very large bill to keep >>>>>>> clean water flowing to our faucets >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rich >>>>>>> (speaking as a citizen of Lincoln) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:01 PM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Amen. >>>>>>>> It’s a little like asking us to make a YUGE leap of faith. >>>>>>>> It makes the argument that we should proceed with extreme caution >>>>>>>> and not make any changes where these questions might come into play, >>>>>>>> esp. a >>>>>>>> challenge to our wetlands bylaw. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------ >>>>>>>> Sara Mattes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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. >> >> -- > 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.
