What you're saying isn't even internally consistent. How does the Planning board keep decisions to itself AND put things up to vote at town meeting?
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 6:03 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >
-- 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.
