The system is flawed...our leadership knows it but continues to perpetuate it except for Sara Mattes...she works for democracy
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023, 8:03 PM Robert Ahlert <robahl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can imagine a person that votes for C now in December, but then feels > hoodwinked because he or she later learns about other details in the > bylaws, that he or she which switch their vote to No in March. > > It would’ve been much cleaner if the planning board had published their > draft bylaws by now. It would also be much cleaner if we had some basic > site plans for the Mall. It would also have been much cleaner if we had a > better traffic study which included 5 corners. Etc. > > Let’s take another year to figure this out with some fresh sets of eyes. > > Sorry, I’m on repeat now. > > Rob > > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 7:31 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> With the approach taken, the PB will decide the ONE set of bylaws that >> will be up for vote in March. >> >> Let's see if an example helps. Height restrictions are an important part >> of the bylaws. Right now, the PB is considering allowing up to 48' (4 >> stories) in the Village Center. >> >> In March, the only two options might be: 1) Vote for the bylaws that >> include 48' heights or 2) do not comply with HCA. For many, either of those >> will be pretty bad options, and people will be forced to pick between the >> lesser of two evils. >> >> Another example, the PB is considering including a clause that says the >> PB can override any of the restrictions by special permit. Again, the vote >> in March might be 1) give the PB decision rights to override any >> restrictions or 2) do not comply with the HCA. What if most people don't >> agree with either? We are forcing residents into false choices. >> >> Tomorrow, we are voting on options but have no idea about any of these >> considerations. We could (should) have been presented with the option to >> choose 36' or 48' height restrictions, for example. Instead, we are letting >> the PB decide what to bring to the March town meeting. >> >> This is very much internally consistent. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 19:19 DJCP <djcp0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> -- >> 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.
