| The income thresholds are by area median income across the state, which makes sense as rents and median incomes are very different across Massachusetts:
https://www.mass.gov/guides/how-to-apply-for-public-housing#:~:text=To%20be%20eligible%20for%20state,for%20the%20current%20income%20limits.
On Dec 1, 2023, at 10:49 PM, Diana Smith <diana.smith.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
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 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 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
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
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.
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?
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. 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. 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 ________________________________________ 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.
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?
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?
Given that, according the Chair of the Planning Board: - "Compliance with the HCA is "exactly zoning by laws"
- "Zoning by-laws are the implementation of HCA compliance"
- 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.
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.
-- Diana Smith
PO Box 6294
Lincoln MA 01773
Cell: 617 803 8022
|
