We are told that to qualify for the affordable units, tenants income  can
be at 80% of the town's median income which was $145,833 in 2021.  So is it
correct to assume that we will be subsidizing tenants with incomes up to
$116,666?
Diana

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:43 PM Robert Ahlert <robahl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, not technical site plans. How about some 2D “design concepts” which
> include the full site?
>
> The real answer as to why they don’t have them is because they don’t need
> to have them. And they don’t need to have them because the plan is to get
> HCA zoning and then sell the property for top dollar. Then let the new
> owner/developer come up with actual site plans which only the PB sees
> because it’s HCA zoning. And the PB can’t control costs of what is built so
> the owner/developer will look to pass their higher costs to consumers by
> building luxury condos that only the top 1% can afford.
>
> It just doesn’t seem very progressive to me at all but maybe we’ll get a
> super nice developer.
>
> Rob
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:06 PM Sara Lupkas <sara.lup...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are no basic site plans for the mall because there is no
>> redevelopment plan for the mall right now. The HCA options that we will be
>> voting on tomorrow are to decide where to put the multi-family zoning
>> districts, that's it. There is no development plan for the mall at this
>> time, and no developer bidding on any project. Putting forward any site
>> plans under these conditions would be extremely premature.
>>
>> Sara Lupkas
>> Staff member of the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust, but these are my
>> personal views and not an official statement
>> Sandy Pond Rd
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Sara Lupkas*
>>
>> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
Diana Smith
PO Box 6294
Lincoln MA  01773
Cell: 617 803 8022
-- 
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.

Reply via email to