I am confused with this answer. No one is denying zoning bylaws require a town meeting vote. In March, the options will be 1) a certain, specific set of bylaws (currently undetermined) or 2) nothing (aka: non-compliance).
Tomorrow, on the other hand, we could have given residents the option to choose among different sets of complete bylaws. At the very least, there should be 100% clarity on issues like height, number of stories, ability to pay fees in lieu of affordable units, commercial space requirements and whether the planning board can provide variances on those or not. I posit that the reason we are not being presented with all that information is because some members of the planning board would prefer to make those decisions themselves rather than letting residents vote on those critical variables. We understand that residents can try to influence what is presented in March, but the PB will decide the final set of bylaws. In March, residents will only be allowed to decide between that specific set or non-compliance. On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 5:48 PM Margaret Olson <s...@margaretolson.com> wrote: > Once again, zoning changes require a vote at town meeting. > > The planning board drafts the zoning and holds public hearings as required > by law. The town then votes at town meeting. > > Once again zoning changes require a vote of town meeting. > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:53 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> > wrote: > >> The HCA is NOT a set of guidelines. The guidelines were created by the >> EOHLC. According to Ms Olson, "compliance with the HCA is "exactly zoning >> by laws". >> >> This is why knowing the bylaws for the proposed subdistricts is >> incredibly important. Why even vote on density and height restrictions >> tomorrow, as all of these options have specified, if the planning board can >> just override everything and make it whatever height and density that they >> (or the developer) feels like adding. >> >> Furthermore, Option E has been modified to fix the minor issue that Utile >> thought may need addressed before submitting it to the state. It meets >> all the guidelines set forth by the EOHLC. >> >> Option C was submitted to the state, however it was never deemed >> compliant. Nor were options D1, D2 or D3. >> >> Furthermore, option C was significantly changed on Wednesday and will >> need resubmitted to the state to account for these changes. >> >> It’s unfortunate that you think we are trying to be disruptive, >> considering the state actually modified the HCA model used to calculate >> modeled units this week, due to the LRHA’s work highlighting the >> significant flaw that results in an overzoning of units. >> >> This change removed over 400 additional units from option C that could >> have been built, by right, on top of the 800 actual units that are allowed >> in the current option C being voted on tomorrow. >> >> While we are grateful that Utile finally listened to our concerns and >> consulted with the state to address the issue with the model, It’s >> unfortunate that the HCAWG members refused to sit down with us weeks ago >> when the issue was detected. >> >> So if you call that disruptive, so be it. >> >> Sarah Postlethwait >> >> Lewis Street >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> Anyone interested in learning more about Option E and the significant >> changes made to options C, D1, D2 and D3 this week can learn more here: >> >> https://sites.google.com/view/lincoln-hca-info/compare-the-options >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:10 PM John Mendelson <johntmendel...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> We are NOT being asked to vote on bylaws. The HCA is a set of >>> guidelines and we are being asked to vote for one of 5 zoning options that >>> conform (or perhaps don't confirm in one case) to said guidelines. We've >>> been told repeatedly that bylaws are to follow and we will vote for one >>> fully developed plan (or not) in March >>> >>> I find this continued obfuscation and distraction really frustrating and >>> hard to hear as anything but an attempt to disrupt the process. >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 4:02 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I am not suggesting that we bring multiple by-laws for approval at the >>>> March town meeting. >>>> >>>> Tomorrow we are asking residents to express a preference for a set of >>>> bylaws through ranked choice voting, The preferred option would then be >>>> presented for approval in March. Options C and D as being voted on tomorrow >>>> are incomplete because we do not have answers to these questions: >>>> >>>> - Building heights/stories >>>> - PB having override prower through special permits >>>> - Commercial space requirements >>>> - Allowance of fees in lieu of affordable units >>>> >>>> If HCA zoning is "exactly zoning by laws" why are we voting under >>>> incomplete assumptions? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 3:42 PM Margaret Olson < >>>> marga...@margaretolson.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Town Counsel has advised us that we should not bring multiple >>>>> potential zoning by-laws to town meeting. The state regulates how zoning >>>>> changes are handled. >>>>> >>>>> A zoning article at town meeting is a straight yes/no vote on a very >>>>> specific set of changes. We can not have any sort of multiple choice vote >>>>> as we can for a "sense of the town" vote. So if we were to bring the >>>>> zoning >>>>> by-law changes for all five options to town meeting we would have five >>>>> warrant articles. In what order should they appear? If the first one >>>>> passes >>>>> do we go on and vote on the others? As a voter who supports the HCA but >>>>> doesn't like the variant that comes first in the warrant what should you >>>>> do? Vote no, holding out for your preferred option, or do you vote yes to >>>>> ensure we do comply? If all five are on the warrant what happens >>>>> if multiple options pass? >>>>> >>>>> Margaret >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:59 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Given that, according the Chair of the Planning Board: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. "*Compliance with the HCA is "exactly zoning by laws*" >>>>>> 2. "Z*oning by-laws are the implementation of HCA compliance*" >>>>>> 3. These by-laws are not ready >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, why are we voting tomorrow? >>>>>> >>>>>> To emphasize how rushed this process has been, significant changes to >>>>>> the densities across options C and Ds were communicated on Wednesday >>>>>> evening (without any public meetings). >>>>>> >>>>>> The areas where the Planning Board hasn't agreed on the bylaws are: >>>>>> building heights/stories, giving the PB special permit powers to change >>>>>> densities and heights/stories, parking and allowing fees in lieu of >>>>>> affordable units. These are all critical questions as we evaluate the >>>>>> different options. How are we expected to discuss the merits of these >>>>>> options without a full understanding of those issues? >>>>>> >>>>>> LRHA has a stance on these open questions. Option E has a set of >>>>>> setbacks, height/story limits and floor area ratios for every district. >>>>>> We >>>>>> are distinctly opposed to providing variances to all of those items, as >>>>>> well as units per acre, through a Planning Board special permit. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 2:38 PM Margaret Olson < >>>>>> marga...@margaretolson.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Compliance with the HCA is *exactly* zoning by laws. The zoning >>>>>>> by-laws are the implementation of HCA compliance. There is no way to >>>>>>> comply >>>>>>> with the HCA without voting to amend the zoning by-laws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the town votes down the proposed zoning by-laws in March, and the >>>>>>> sense of the town is that we want to comply but the planning board >>>>>>> presented an unacceptable set of regulations, then the planning board >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> go back to work and try again at a special town meeting at a later date. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>> 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.
