[LincolnTalk] Zoning restrictions maintain Town control

[RAandBOB]

Most house lots in town are zoned for by-right single-family housing. You can’t 
build just any house on these lots, however. The building is governed by side 
lot and front lot setbacks and by height, wetland and septic restrictions, 
among others. 

Similarly, the new zoning for by right multi family housing/retail will 
restrict the possibilities for buildings. The planning board is in the process 
of developing new bylaws. Right now they disagree among themselves. Their 
continuing discussions will be held in public, and also be guided by input from 
the public through public hearings. Eventually, they will propose new bylaws 
that will be voted up or down by the Town Meeting. This is the process that 
will eventually limit what developers can build on these new by-right zoned 
properties for multi-family/retail developments. In this way, the Town will 
continue to have control over what is developed.

Ruth Ann Hendrickson 
(She, her, hers)
-- 
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.

[LincolnTalk] Mall Rezoning idea

[David Cuetos]

I would support some rezoning of the Mall, but not just every rezoning. To
be more specific:

   -

   I would only support rezoning the Mall. Rezoning the commuter lot goes
   directly against the town's mission of fostering the use of public
   transportation (for the record, I actually take the train into North
   Station). I also don't like the idea of rezoning Doherty's with high
   density buildings so close to Codman Farm.
   -

   I want to ensure that most of our commercial space is preserved, as well
   as the commercial parking. Given these requisites, the number of
   residential units at the Mall would probably need to be very materially
   reduced. I am also not in favor of covering the parcel with four story
   buildings. There needs to be firm lot coverage and height restrictions in
   place in the zoning bylaws.
   -

   I would want a higher percentage of affordable units at the Mall,
   probably 25% like we have done historically, including some reserved for
   low income folks. I actually think the Mall would be a perfect location for
   a smart growth overlay district (aka 40R
   
).
   If the Mall was 40R zoned, it could count towards HCA compliance AND we
   could require 25% affordable units, PLUS the town would receive financial
   incentives from the State.

As an aside, TCB , which owns Lincoln Woods, would be
a perfect partner to develop the Mall under 40R given their mission and
their experience in mixed used districts. It would also ensure access to
the water treatment plant without the need of a bribe.

The question is, why wouldn’t the RLF want this kind of rezoning too? It
would be much better aligned with its mission

than the proposal it has been floating. Why is the RLF so desperately
interested in maximizing the profit from the sale of the parcel? Why not
try to live within its means instead? I would note that the RLF/LLCT’s
expenses are twice that of its Concord sister (Concord Land Conservation
Trust, CLCT). The CLCT oversees twice the acreage the LLCT does.


I have attended the last two working group Planning Board meetings and I
have to say that despite the brave attempts from two members, I have very
little confidence that the bylaws will land at a reasonable place. It is
completely unprecedented in Lincoln for the Planning Board to be scheming
to reserve powers to override density and height restrictions. Giving the
developer the option to pay a fee instead of building affordable units is a
non-sequitur as well. The fact that some Planning Board members would put
pen to paper to such desires, even in a draft, is inauspicious.


On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:08 PM John Mendelson 
wrote:

> Would you support the Village Center rezoning in March if it came to town
> meeting separately?
>
> Margaret Olson made clear in her post yesterday the by-laws you cite in
> your final paragraph are in the earliest stages of discussion so to
> insinuate that such a building on the Doherty's property "could be built"
> on that site is a bit of a stretch at this point.
>
> Though if it is, I wouldn't mind downsizing to a nice west-facing
> apartment with a view of Codman Farm one day. :-)
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 8:00 PM David Cuetos  wrote:
>
>> I am going to attach the email I sent to the Director of Planning,
>> Jennifer Glass and Utile a few days ago at the bottom. I don't think there
>> is any ambiguity in the wording of the guidelines and believe option E as
>> sent would be compliant. However, we do not want to get bogged down on this
>> issue. There is one simple fix to ensure contiguity, which we have offered
>> repeatedly to the HCAWG, both in public meetings and via email. As per the
>> email Sarah Postlethwait sent to LincolnTalk and Jennifer Glass last night
>> in response to Jennifer's email, we are adding 2 Lewis St to Option E. It
>> would have been more reasonable for Jennifer and Paula to contact us before
>> posting that public notice and it would have been in keeping with Jim
>> Hutchinson's public request that technical non-compliance issues for
>> resident's proposals would be parsimoniously fixed.
>>
>> I disagree with the characterization that option E is minimally
>> compliant. Option E would allow for 113 units built (this excludes Battle
>> Road Farm) an amount that is equivalent as a % of our existing units to
>> Brookline's approved HCA proposal. Brookline's proposal was widely
>> celebrated as a successful compromise between opposing groups. This doesn't
>> even take into consideration the fact that the Village Center District
>> rezoning would be presented separately at Town Meeting if Option E is
>> chosen. There are options we could have presented which would have led to
>> zero units develope

Re: [LincolnTalk] District contiguity question

[Bijoy Misra]

In some sense people may have a tendency to think that Option E is a
challenge
to the town management.  Personally my reaction was that the new proposal C
was similar to one proposed in 2019 that was seriously objected by all
present
in that public meeting.  That proposal was a precursor to a vote in the town
meeting and the proposal was abandoned.  This new Option C wishes to
bypass the town meeting under the cover of HCA  No solid justification has
not been put forward as to why we think of piling up structures without
thinking of traffic and environment.  Traffic was commented heavily in that
2019 meeting.  The traffic report posted at the town talks about egress and
not of delay and congestion.  A parallel infrastructure project is
necessary
before we squeeze habitation structures in a confined area.
The Select Board's idea to put a proper planning for development
in TownCenter is to be complimented.  It would need a fair amount of
infrastructure planning and expenditure.  All must think constructively
to achieve it.  HCA is a minor affair, we should not sell land at the Town
Center under the excuse of complying to a mistake-ridden state proposal.
The MBTA enhancement is another big-ticket item for the State. .Our town
would benefit with good train service but that is well into the future.
Best regards,
Bijoy Misra

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:00 PM David Cuetos  wrote:

> I am going to attach the email I sent to the Director of Planning,
> Jennifer Glass and Utile a few days ago at the bottom. I don't think there
> is any ambiguity in the wording of the guidelines and believe option E as
> sent would be compliant. However, we do not want to get bogged down on this
> issue. There is one simple fix to ensure contiguity, which we have offered
> repeatedly to the HCAWG, both in public meetings and via email. As per the
> email Sarah Postlethwait sent to LincolnTalk and Jennifer Glass last night
> in response to Jennifer's email, we are adding 2 Lewis St to Option E. It
> would have been more reasonable for Jennifer and Paula to contact us before
> posting that public notice and it would have been in keeping with Jim
> Hutchinson's public request that technical non-compliance issues for
> resident's proposals would be parsimoniously fixed.
>
> I disagree with the characterization that option E is minimally compliant.
> Option E would allow for 113 units built (this excludes Battle Road Farm)
> an amount that is equivalent as a % of our existing units to Brookline's
> approved HCA proposal. Brookline's proposal was widely celebrated as a
> successful compromise between opposing groups. This doesn't even take into
> consideration the fact that the Village Center District rezoning would be
> presented separately at Town Meeting if Option E is chosen. There are
> options we could have presented which would have led to zero units
> developed as of right, but we decided not to do that because we want to put
> forward a compromise option that can satisfy as many residents as possible.
>
> I want to make clear that excluding N Lewis was not part of our original
> mission. It was actually a request from the Historical Society. A lot of us
> would have been comfortable including it, but we also realized that there
> is a good deal of fungibility in designing options. There are clearly folks
> in town who care deeply about our history, so we saw no particular harm in
> rezoning other properties instead. We could have dropped all of Lewis St,
> but that would have meant that Option E would have tilted perhaps too far
> for some in the no development by right direction.
>
> As to your point regarding development encroaching Codman Farm. I think
> there is a big difference between what we propose and options C-D. The
> biggest difference is that no re-development would occur at Doherty's,
> which is obviously the closest parcel to Codman Farm. Under the by-laws
> discussed for options C-D, a 48' 4-story building could be placed on that
> site. The same could occur at the Mall. The other difference is that for
> the Lincoln Rd/ Lewis St district  we are a) limiting the height at 36'
> rather than 42' as per the by-laws discussed, and b) increasing the setback
> to 25' from 15'.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:12 AM Carl Angiolillo 
> wrote:
>
>> I appreciate Karla's clarifications, and her interpretation of the act
>> seems reasonable, however the wording is indeed ambiguous so I think there
>> is a possibility that the EOHLC could choose to interpret it differently.
>> (As evidenced by the recent email from Jennifer Glass)
>>
>> However, this part of the explanation particularly stuck out to me:
>>
>> > The only impact of having a discontiguous piece of Lincoln Rd that is
>> less than 5 acres is that those 2.7 acres do not count towards our minimum
>> requirement of 42. This is not an issue as option E adds up to 56.9 acres
>> not including the 2.7.
>>
>> In that case I am unsure why those four non-contributing lots were

[LincolnTalk] Reflections on a Community Center for Lincoln

[bslayter]

Over the years there has been a lot of discussion about the pros and cons as
well as the specific characteristics of a community center that we might
eventually have in Lincoln.  

Three contributions to The Lincoln Squirrel's "My Turn" in recent weeks have
shaped my thinking  about how to vote at Saturday's Special Town Meeting.
They are Ellen Shorb's  "How would you use a community center?".   Dilla
Tingley's  "A Community Center for Lincoln" and David Levington's "How about
Equity for Seniors?"

Ellen's delightful  essay encouraged us to imagine
possibilities.  The question she posed was not " How would I use a community
center in Lincoln right now?" but rather "How might I have used it when I
first moved to Lincoln with four young children?" and "How might I use it
in the near future?  Her lively responses led me to reflect on these same
questions for myself.  How might  I have used a community center at
different stages in my life?  What opportunities could have  existed in the
past and what might be available in the future?  It is intriguing to
speculate!

Dilla's essay led me to ponder another set of questions.  We are
not talking about a senior center.  We are talking about a community center
that will serve the whole community, seniors, school children, and everyone
in between.  LEAP will be ensconced in the community center as planned  but
more than that the building will be accessible to all ages, interest groups,
and organizations in the community in the way that the facilities at Bemis
Hall (much as I treasure them) simply can't accommodate.  If you have ever
tried to schedule a discussion group at Bemis or a public meeting with your
state representative, you know the pressure that exists on use of those
spaces.

With an "edge" about seniors being left out, David asks us to
look at the big picture.  Given three options to consider, he (and almost
everyone else) writes off the least expensive as being unacceptable, a
structure totally inadequate for addressing the programmatic and
administrative needs of the COA & HS and Parks and Recreation. 

He then looks at the tax implications of the remaining two
choices and determines that, from his perspective, the  difference is not
large.  Why not, he asks, take the step to create a structure that will
serve us well over a long period of time?  "Why not?" I ask myself.  This
might be an opportunity not to be missed.  Who knows when it will come
again.

I would also add another thought.   Isolation and loneliness are
widely regarded as significant concerns in contemporary American life.
Across the country approximately 30% of households have only one adult in
residence. 

 In Lincoln, a significant number of adults live alone.  While this may be
especially true for seniors, it is also the case for all age groups.  I can
well imagine the benefits of a gathering place where residents can get
together informally, at will, and as need be for casual interactions over a
cup of coffee or planned discussions, activities,  or events. 

How special to have a place to go without invitation, or pre-arrangements,
or pre-programming.  Just turn up!  This is my community, my center, and I,
along with everyone else in this community, am welcome.  And if it is
beautiful, spacious, and accommodating, so much the better.





 



 

 

 

-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] District contiguity question

[John Mendelson]

Would you support the Village Center rezoning in March if it came to town
meeting separately?

Margaret Olson made clear in her post yesterday the by-laws you cite in
your final paragraph are in the earliest stages of discussion so to
insinuate that such a building on the Doherty's property "could be built"
on that site is a bit of a stretch at this point.

Though if it is, I wouldn't mind downsizing to a nice west-facing apartment
with a view of Codman Farm one day. :-)

John

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 8:00 PM David Cuetos  wrote:

> I am going to attach the email I sent to the Director of Planning,
> Jennifer Glass and Utile a few days ago at the bottom. I don't think there
> is any ambiguity in the wording of the guidelines and believe option E as
> sent would be compliant. However, we do not want to get bogged down on this
> issue. There is one simple fix to ensure contiguity, which we have offered
> repeatedly to the HCAWG, both in public meetings and via email. As per the
> email Sarah Postlethwait sent to LincolnTalk and Jennifer Glass last night
> in response to Jennifer's email, we are adding 2 Lewis St to Option E. It
> would have been more reasonable for Jennifer and Paula to contact us before
> posting that public notice and it would have been in keeping with Jim
> Hutchinson's public request that technical non-compliance issues for
> resident's proposals would be parsimoniously fixed.
>
> I disagree with the characterization that option E is minimally compliant.
> Option E would allow for 113 units built (this excludes Battle Road Farm)
> an amount that is equivalent as a % of our existing units to Brookline's
> approved HCA proposal. Brookline's proposal was widely celebrated as a
> successful compromise between opposing groups. This doesn't even take into
> consideration the fact that the Village Center District rezoning would be
> presented separately at Town Meeting if Option E is chosen. There are
> options we could have presented which would have led to zero units
> developed as of right, but we decided not to do that because we want to put
> forward a compromise option that can satisfy as many residents as possible.
>
> I want to make clear that excluding N Lewis was not part of our original
> mission. It was actually a request from the Historical Society. A lot of us
> would have been comfortable including it, but we also realized that there
> is a good deal of fungibility in designing options. There are clearly folks
> in town who care deeply about our history, so we saw no particular harm in
> rezoning other properties instead. We could have dropped all of Lewis St,
> but that would have meant that Option E would have tilted perhaps too far
> for some in the no development by right direction.
>
> As to your point regarding development encroaching Codman Farm. I think
> there is a big difference between what we propose and options C-D. The
> biggest difference is that no re-development would occur at Doherty's,
> which is obviously the closest parcel to Codman Farm. Under the by-laws
> discussed for options C-D, a 48' 4-story building could be placed on that
> site. The same could occur at the Mall. The other difference is that for
> the Lincoln Rd/ Lewis St district  we are a) limiting the height at 36'
> rather than 42' as per the by-laws discussed, and b) increasing the setback
> to 25' from 15'.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:12 AM Carl Angiolillo 
> wrote:
>
>> I appreciate Karla's clarifications, and her interpretation of the act
>> seems reasonable, however the wording is indeed ambiguous so I think there
>> is a possibility that the EOHLC could choose to interpret it differently.
>> (As evidenced by the recent email from Jennifer Glass)
>>
>> However, this part of the explanation particularly stuck out to me:
>>
>> > The only impact of having a discontiguous piece of Lincoln Rd that is
>> less than 5 acres is that those 2.7 acres do not count towards our minimum
>> requirement of 42. This is not an issue as option E adds up to 56.9 acres
>> not including the 2.7.
>>
>> In that case I am unsure why those four non-contributing lots were
>> included in Option E. It seems like it would have been simpler to exclude
>> all of Lewis street and then pick up another fifty or so units of modeled
>> multi-family capacity by adding a couple units per acre at Battle Road
>> Farm, especially if these are unlikely to be built anyway as per the
>> Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternative website.
>>
>> First, objections levied against Options C and D (including from LRHA
>> supporters) included the specter of multi-story buildings overlooking
>> Codman Farm and the sensitive environment in and around the Codman Corner
>> area. Including North Lewis seems to subject option E to the same
>> objections.
>>
>> Second, even if one is reasonably confident that the EOHLC will permit
>> discontinuous subdistricts, that still leaves a small chance they will not,
>> potentially forcing the inclusion of t

Re: [LincolnTalk] District contiguity question

[David Cuetos]

I am going to attach the email I sent to the Director of Planning, Jennifer
Glass and Utile a few days ago at the bottom. I don't think there is any
ambiguity in the wording of the guidelines and believe option E as sent
would be compliant. However, we do not want to get bogged down on this
issue. There is one simple fix to ensure contiguity, which we have offered
repeatedly to the HCAWG, both in public meetings and via email. As per the
email Sarah Postlethwait sent to LincolnTalk and Jennifer Glass last night
in response to Jennifer's email, we are adding 2 Lewis St to Option E. It
would have been more reasonable for Jennifer and Paula to contact us before
posting that public notice and it would have been in keeping with Jim
Hutchinson's public request that technical non-compliance issues for
resident's proposals would be parsimoniously fixed.

I disagree with the characterization that option E is minimally compliant.
Option E would allow for 113 units built (this excludes Battle Road Farm)
an amount that is equivalent as a % of our existing units to Brookline's
approved HCA proposal. Brookline's proposal was widely celebrated as a
successful compromise between opposing groups. This doesn't even take into
consideration the fact that the Village Center District rezoning would be
presented separately at Town Meeting if Option E is chosen. There are
options we could have presented which would have led to zero units
developed as of right, but we decided not to do that because we want to put
forward a compromise option that can satisfy as many residents as possible.

I want to make clear that excluding N Lewis was not part of our original
mission. It was actually a request from the Historical Society. A lot of us
would have been comfortable including it, but we also realized that there
is a good deal of fungibility in designing options. There are clearly folks
in town who care deeply about our history, so we saw no particular harm in
rezoning other properties instead. We could have dropped all of Lewis St,
but that would have meant that Option E would have tilted perhaps too far
for some in the no development by right direction.

As to your point regarding development encroaching Codman Farm. I think
there is a big difference between what we propose and options C-D. The
biggest difference is that no re-development would occur at Doherty's,
which is obviously the closest parcel to Codman Farm. Under the by-laws
discussed for options C-D, a 48' 4-story building could be placed on that
site. The same could occur at the Mall. The other difference is that for
the Lincoln Rd/ Lewis St district  we are a) limiting the height at 36'
rather than 42' as per the by-laws discussed, and b) increasing the setback
to 25' from 15'.


On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 8:12 AM Carl Angiolillo 
wrote:

> I appreciate Karla's clarifications, and her interpretation of the act
> seems reasonable, however the wording is indeed ambiguous so I think there
> is a possibility that the EOHLC could choose to interpret it differently.
> (As evidenced by the recent email from Jennifer Glass)
>
> However, this part of the explanation particularly stuck out to me:
>
> > The only impact of having a discontiguous piece of Lincoln Rd that is
> less than 5 acres is that those 2.7 acres do not count towards our minimum
> requirement of 42. This is not an issue as option E adds up to 56.9 acres
> not including the 2.7.
>
> In that case I am unsure why those four non-contributing lots were
> included in Option E. It seems like it would have been simpler to exclude
> all of Lewis street and then pick up another fifty or so units of modeled
> multi-family capacity by adding a couple units per acre at Battle Road
> Farm, especially if these are unlikely to be built anyway as per the
> Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternative website.
>
> First, objections levied against Options C and D (including from LRHA
> supporters) included the specter of multi-story buildings overlooking
> Codman Farm and the sensitive environment in and around the Codman Corner
> area. Including North Lewis seems to subject option E to the same
> objections.
>
> Second, even if one is reasonably confident that the EOHLC will permit
> discontinuous subdistricts, that still leaves a small chance they will not,
> potentially forcing the inclusion of the historic Lewis Street lots.
>
> Third, the LRHA group seems to have given thoughtful consideration to each
> area included or excluded, and my sense is that otherwise Option E has been
> intelligently designed to be minimally compliant in order to retain as much
> town control as possible. In that light, including additional acreage seems
> out of place.
>
> Note that I'm not arguing against including these lots; on balance I
> personally lean towards including them as well as the rest of Lewis Street.
> I'm just working my way through all the compliance options and trying to
> better understand the factors behind the decisions.
>
> Carl
>

[LincolnTalk] To include the mall or not to include the mall: That is the HCA question

[Laurie Gray]

I am a supporter of option E, who also wants development at the mall.  What
I would like for the mall is for some number of housing units to go up (see
my old lincoln talk posts, I am not sure the exact number), while
maintaining viability of Donelan's and serious consideration to keeping a
commuter lot.  Without a grocery store and commuter parking, the notion
that we are doing all this for environmental reasons seems false.  I would
also like to see a large percentage of these units to be affordable (also
in the spirit of the HCA), but understand the economics of this issue are
complicated.

What I have heard is developers do not want to go through town meeting.
That is the line that has been repeated.  I agree that they would rather
not have to negotiate with the town.  They would not get as much as they
want (which is profit).  People have said that they WON'T go through town
meeting and therefore the only way to get housing there is to push it
through the HCA .  I am skeptical of this.  First of all, before the
summer, the mall was not even allowed to be included in the HCA because
mixed use land (residential + commercial) was not allowed in the
proposals.  So there must have been some other plan to develop the mall
outside of the HCA.  Other projects, like Oriole landing have gone through
town meeting successfully .  It may take time but I believe it is worth it
to try to get what we truly want at the mall.  Once we give up our rights
to developers, it is gone.  THIS IS OUR PRIME REAL ESTATE.

I know there has been chatter about special interests and secrecy in the
option E group.  I'm not sure exactly what the special interest would be in
this case.  However, is it possible there is a special interest tricking
people into thinking the best way to get housing at the mall is through the
HCA?  I am worried that we are being taken advantage of.   That our moral
principles, which are strong and great, could blind us to what could really
be going on.  I have no concrete evidence, and am pointing no fingers at
any one person or entity, but I know small towns are ripe for corruption
and that good, smart people can be misled.  I welcome a dialogue on this
issue.  Am I paranoid or perhaps onto something?

Laurie Gray
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Changes to Options C and D made as recently as yesterday

[Bijoy Misra]

I don't understand the rush and the errors.  Errors happen when we are not
careful or do not fully understand.
Let us be conservative and vote E for HCA compliance. Then do the Mall
development with more thoughtful
(error-free!) public discussion.  Let us not rush.
Best regards,
Bijoy Misra


On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:24 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:

> With the flurry of emails on the topic, I thought I would summarize the
> evolution of Options C and Ds, and all the changes that have been made to
> them in recent days.
>
>
>- The town submitted Option C, as developed by Utile, to the State on
>October 12th
>- There was an error found in Utile's model submission: it included an
>extra 18 acres of land that had not been approved. The HCAWG confirmed and
>corrected this mistake.
>- On November 8th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the Lincoln Woods density
>would be adjusted down to 8 units/acre from the 20 units per acre in the
>original submission for all options. Lincoln Rd density was also dropped to
>14 units per acre in the Lincoln Rd district.  150 Lincoln Rd was dropped
>from the parcel list. It is unclear whether either of these corrections has
>been sent to the State.
>- *On November 29th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the density for the
>Codman Rd and Lincoln Rd districts was reduced because of
>over-zoning concerns, across all options C-Ds.*  It is also unclear
>whether the corrections to Option C have been sent to the State.
>
> I have taken the liberty of mapping out the changes in the table below.
>
> I will leave it up to readers to interpret whether Option C as presented
> at SOTT and submitted to the State on Oct. 12th is the same as what is
> being voted on Saturday.
>
> [image: image.png]
> --
> 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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Rural Land Foundation Seeks Your Support

[Bijoy Misra]

It has been said that RLF has come to financial troubles and so advocates
the "by right" intent avoiding the town meeting.
I believe that a "by right" arrangement of arbitrary development in Town
center contradicts the nature and character of town.
Kindly publish the RLF financial document if it is open for public view.
Transparency should be the part of the appeal.
Thank you.
Regards
Bijoy Misra

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:43 PM Michelle Barnes via Lincoln <
lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote:

> November 30, 2023
>
>
>
> Dear Lincoln Residents,
>
>
>
> As the December 2nd Town Meeting approaches, we thought it would be
> helpful to briefly remind you of who we are, why we think our preliminary
> proposal to redevelop the Mall with by-right mixed-use zoning is in the
> best interest of Lincoln, and our current thinking of the HCA Options.
>
>
>
> *The RLF and its mission*
>
> The Rural Land Foundation (RLF) is a non-profit land conservation
> organization whose central mission, along with our sister organization the
> Lincoln Land Conservation Trust (LLCT), is to help protect the rural
> character of Lincoln.  The RLF Board, made up of 17 Lincoln residents and
> its 3 Lincoln resident staff members all care deeply about this town.
>
>
>
> While our primary goal is to help the town conserve land through
> acquisition, creative planning, and limited development, we also own and
> operate the Mall for the benefit of Lincoln residents. Proceeds from
> operating the Mall fund our land conservation activities in Lincoln.  Through
> the years, RLF’s creative model has helped us work with the Town to
> conserve more than 2500 acres of land and create over 80 miles of
> interconnected trails.  Whether it is protecting most of the 100+acre
> Wheeler Farm back in the early 1960s with a limited development model, or
> more recently conserving much of the Wang property and providing an
> opportunity for the town to create a much-needed athletic field, our goals
> and commitment are to help the town meet its needs and preserve its rural
> character.
>
>
>
> *RLF’s preferred option*
>
> At the December 2nd Special Town Meeting, the Town is asking Lincoln
> residents to vote on a preferred zoning warrant article that meets the
> requirements of the Housing Choice Act (HCA).   Four of the zoning
> options (C, D-1, D-2 and D-3) allow the Town to take credit for the Mall
> rezoning towards the total number of units the state requires for Lincoln
> to comply with the HCA.  We think all four of these particular options
> make sense for the town to take credit for housing units zoned at the Mall.
> It is our belief that Option C creates the best opportunity to
>
> - Create new multi-family housing near public transportation
>
> - Provide economically diverse housing options and create affordable housing
> that may actually be built
>
>  - Help the Mall’s valued tenants in an otherwise struggling retail
> environment
>
> - Minimize climate change impacts
>
>
>
> We see this as an exciting opportunity to work with town residents and
> officials to revitalize our small commercial area and create a sustainable
> and vibrant town center. For any potential redevelopment that is considered
> at the Mall, we are committed to help the Town ensure a commercial-based
> town center for the long term.
>
>
>
> *Why by-right zoning is best for redeveloping the Mall*
>
> We are asking for the by-right mixed-use zoning for the Mall versus the
> Town Meeting process because we believe it:
>
>
>
> -  Provides the most financial flexibility
>
> -  Creates site planning clarity for RLF and a future developer
>
> -  Allows the Mall to be on the same competitive playing field
> for developers as other HCA by-right zoned areas within Lincoln and
> surrounding towns
>
> -  More likely to attract essential outside capital for much
> needed reinvestment in the Mall
>
> -  Still preserves our commercial center and is more likely to
> create a vibrant and sustainable town center
>
>
>
> *Public process*
>
> RLF is fully committed to a public process that, in addition to Planning
> Board site plan review, includes numerous feedback sessions with town
> residents and many other opportunities to let us know what you like and
> what you don’t like.  Our last redevelopment project at the Mall in the
> early 2000s, where we saved the Post Office and Donelan’s from leaving,
> involved a process that included Town Meeting and nearly 7 years of
> listening and public feedback, much of which we tried to incorporate.  The
> uncertainty, cost and length of that process almost resulted in the project
> not coming to fruition.
>
>
>
> We know many residents are very concerned about the future of the
> commercial center and we appreciate that interest.  The RLF Board and
> staff have worked hard over the years to maintain a commercial center for
> Lincoln and we hope to ensure a vibrant and sustainable center for the
> future.  It is o

[LincolnTalk] Late Night at Lincoln-Sudbury (Senior Safe Night- Graduation Event)

[M. Carty]

Lincoln-Sudbury Community,

Late Night at LS is 7 months away. Does anyone have a lead on a Henna
Artist? Would anyone in the community have this talent they would be
willing to donate their time, or provide for a nominal fee? Prices are
skyrocketing; we’re trying to get creative to keep the cost down for
students and families.

Thank you!
Late Night at LS Committee

>
>
>
>
-- 
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.

[LincolnTalk] Lincoln Voters in Favor of Option C for HCA: A letter to our community

[Rebecca Blanchfield]

Dear Lincoln Community,

We Lincoln voters have carefully reviewed the Options for compliance with
the Massachusetts Housing Choice Act at the special State of the Town
meeting, on Saturday, December 2.

*We plan to support Option C for the following reasons:  *

·  Option C, in which all the rezoning takes place near the train
station and in the area surrounding the mall, provides the *best and most
likely opportunity to create a vibrant, welcoming center for this town.  *


·  We have *confidence in the Rural Land Foundation to live up to its
mission* to acquire, protect, and steward conservation land in Lincoln as
it has done conscientiously since its formation in 1965.


·  *Option C is preferable to Option E because:*



o   *Option E does not include the mall in its rezoning plan*.  We believe
improvements in the mall will not happen in the near future if we delay the
process for future Town Meeting approvals.


o   *Option E designates 54.3% of new units at BRF, a disingenuous plan
since approval of new housing is unlikely to take place.*  Battle Road Farm
has a cumbersome and complicated process in which 100% of condominium
owners must approve a requested change.   In terms of approval for new
housing, Battle Road Farm is a non-starter.


·  We believe that *affordable housing can be achieved in other ways in
the rezoned areas*.  We are content, for now, to agree to 10% affordable
housing in the mall area.



·  We believe that *Option C offers the most environmentally sound
approach* to joining efforts to address greater Boston’s housing needs
and strengthen the use of the commuter rail, while also maintaining our
commitment to conscientious stewardship of our environment.



·  *Therefore, we support C which will:*



o   Strengthen Lincoln’s commercial area, creating a vibrant center for the
town.

o   Provide a timely and honest response to the housing crisis in greater
Boston.

o   Enable Lincoln to work toward an optimal housing affordability ratio.

o   Adhere to our values of cherishing our environment while supporting the
human needs of our larger community.


*List of Supporters of Option C:*

Sarah Andrysiak

Jim Fleming

Buffer Morgan

Carl Angiolillo

Martha Frost

Richard Nichols

Lisa Barna

Rainer Frost

John Nolan

Ken Bassett

Amy Funkenstein

Trisha O'Hagan

Cindy Bencal

Gina Halsted

David Onigman

Alex Benik

Emily Haslett

Jason Paige

Merrill Berkery

Tom Haslett

Ginger Reiner

Laura Berland

Ruth Ann Hendrikson

Kurt Reiner

Becky Bermont

Lis Herbert

Aldis Russell

Sarah Bishop

Zach Herbert

Greg Schmergel

Rebecca Blanchfield

Shira Horowitz

Joanna Schmergel

Pam Boardman

Ken Hurd

Ellen Shorb

John Bordiuk

Pam Hurd

Paul Shorb

Rory Bordiuk

Brian Jalet

Barbara Slayter

Janet Boynton

Judy Kearney

Victoria Slingerland

Brian Burns

Joan Kimball

Jonathan Soo

Jessica Callow

John Kimball

Kara Soo

Tom Casey

Jackie Lenth

Bill Stason

Alex Chatfield

David Levington

Jim Stock

Jason Curtin

Elizabeth Levy

Peter Sugar

Christine Damon

Connie Lewis

Tricia Thornton-Wells

Priscilla Damon

Gwyn Loud

Dilla Tingley

Alice DeNormandie

Sara Lupkas

Christina Van Vleck

Nancy Donaldson

Rick Mandelkorn

Mary Jo Veling

Anne Doyle

Rachel Mason

Katy Walker

Andy Falender

John Mendelson

Irene Weigel

Jon Ferris

DJ Mitchell

Susan Welsh

Kristen Ferris

Staci Montori

Krystal Wood

Nancy Fleming

Terri Morgan

Jennifer Zeis
-- 
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.

[LincolnTalk] Signs - some background

[Christopher Eliot]

Common sense dictates that signs should stay up while the issue is relevant 
which in some cases has nothing to do with an election cycle.

-Christopher Eliot

> There are a lot of signs popping up all over town?.sales, school open houses, 
> painters, roofers, etc, etc.
> 
> Years ago, we Selects worked hard to come up with a protocol for signage that 
> was appearing everywhere.
> 
> Poor Tim Higgins was assigned the onerous task of being sign tzar?and he had 
> to send poor DPW folks out to bring order to the chaos.
> 
> So, here is what we came up with.
> Perhaps it has changed, but if not?please make life easy for Tim, et al.
> It was and still is fun to read what is going on, what family has an L/S or 
> Brooks grad. and what evens are happening around town.
> That said, it is not bad to also be aware of some of the ancient ?road rules."
> 
> 1) All signs should have clear contact info for the event, company, or 
> political candidate/position being promoted ?anonymous was not good.
> 2) The town has a number of town-owned locations for signage-5 corners, 
> Morningside Park, entrance to schools, Peace Park/Lincoln Rd., the 
> intersection of Lincoln and 117, the intersection of Codman Rd. and 126.
> 3) Signs should not be up more than 2 weeks, and come down within a week 
> after an event (this frees up space of other events)
> 4) Contractors and service workers signs should only be near  driveways while 
> work is ongoing.
> 5) Political and other signs, on private property, should be near a clearly 
> identifiable address/driveway.  This was to prevent  the ?Burma Shave? 
> effect., and to make the person/household that put up the sign clearly 
> identifiable. (No random placements along Lincoln or Weston Rd.-famous spots 
> for things to appear)
> 6) When putting signs up at the ever-popular 5 corner, place the signs behind 
>  the in laid granite stones, away from the intersection.  This was because 
> signs were blocking drivers view as they approached from Sandy Pond Rd.
> 
> When you think about it, these were all common sense, but common sense does 
> not always prevail.
> 
> Perhaps, if there have been changes, the modern day Sign Tsar can weigh in.
> 
> And, unless there has been  revisions of these efforts, let?s practice 
> reserve.   It will be good to practice before the 2024 election kick into 
> high gear and we can expect multiples in multiple places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sara Mattes
> 
> 

-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] 2023 11 30 - HCAWG Update: Diving into the calculations

[Benjamin Shiller]

I am glad this issue has finally been partially addressed, although there
is more that needs to be done.  For those of you who are curious, this
problem was identified by the LRHA and described in two videos I posted to
YouTube over the last couple months. The videos describe the issue and how
to fix it.


Shorter video: https://youtu.be/OQBtwTW7Uow

Longer video: https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI



However, the problem of overbuilding is not fully addressed.  The override
option does not fully address the wetlands overbuilding issue, and town
lands remain among the selected parcels, implying that we are still
rezoning land that counts zero towards HCA compliance.  The potential
development under options C and D still far exceeds the quoted statistics.



More information can be found at LincolnHCA.org





> For those who enjoy a granular look at how the numbers work, here is
> additional information from Utile:
> Wetlands Calculation Explanation: You will notice in this iteration of our
> calculations  that
> there has been a change in the relationship between the units/acre cap
> (which has generally been lowered) and the modeled unit capacity (which has
> generally stayed the same or increased slightly). This is because we have
> implemented an override option in the compliance model spreadsheet that
> alters the way open space and wetland deductions are handled. We learned of
> this override after seeking advice from the State on how to better address
> Lincoln's unique wetland constraints and get the model to more accurately
> account for them. Below is an explanation of how this "wetland open space
> override" works. The default of the model is to first subtract all
> undevelopable wetland area (excluded land in the State model), and then
> subtract an additional 20% of total lot area for open space to approximate
> the impact of setbacks on maximum building footprint as well as any lot
> area needed to meet parking requirements. With the "wetland open space
> override" we have implemented, the compliance model spreadsheet is now
> allowing wetland area to count towards that 20% open space requirement,
> which more accurately represents the actual development potential of
> Lincoln properties that have significant wetland area. To provide an
> example, 140 Lincoln Rd (Ryan Estates) under the default model calculation
> method is handled as follows: 85% of the land area is subtracted because it
> is undevelopable (excluded) wetland area, then an additional 20% of the
> land area is subtracted for the minimum open space requirement leaving no
> developable area and therefore no modeled unit capacity. With the "wetland
> open space override" implemented, the model calculation is handled as
> follows: the model assesses which is greater - the excluded wetland area or
> the 20% minimum open space requirement - it then subtracts whichever is
> greater, in the case of 140 Lincoln Rd the excluded wetland area (85%) is
> greater, so it subtracts that 85% from the total lot area leaving 15% as
> developable land for parking and building yielding a unit capacity of 87
> units under the original 18 units/acre cap for this district. We were then
> able to reduce the units/acre cap to 11 units/acre which caps the maximum
> number of units on this lot to exactly 87.
> Units per Acre Cap Explanation: The units per acre maximum written into
> each subdistrict’s zoning is a hard cap with which developers and property
> owners will have to comply. The units per acre zoning parameter does not
> specify unit size, so it will allow for a range of unit sizes. However, the
> maximum allowable number of units will remain constrained by the size of
> the property multiplied by the units per acre cap.
> Interpreting Modeled Unit Capacity Numbers: For those who have been
> working in the State Compliance Model Spreadsheet or have been speaking to
> people who have, you may be focused on the difference between four numbers
> provided in the "summary" tab of that spreadsheet: Modeled Unit Capacity
> vs. Dwelling Units per Acre Limit vs. Max Units per Lot Limit vs. Final
> Unit Capacity per District. The number you should be focused on is the
> Final Unit Capacity per District, which includes all the zoning
> constraints. The other unit capacity numbers shown reflect the application
> of specific constraints that are applied cumulatively to arrive at the
> overall modeled unit capacity. Here are a series of slides <
> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85304> that show those
> relationships.
-- 
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.

[LincolnTalk] 2023 11 30 - HCAWG Update: Diving into the calculations

[Jennifer Glass via Lincoln]

For those who enjoy a granular look at how the numbers work, here is additional 
information from Utile:

Wetlands Calculation Explanation: You will notice in this iteration of our 
calculations  that there 
has been a change in the relationship between the units/acre cap (which has 
generally been lowered) and the modeled unit capacity (which has generally 
stayed the same or increased slightly). This is because we have implemented an 
override option in the compliance model spreadsheet that alters the way open 
space and wetland deductions are handled. We learned of this override after 
seeking advice from the State on how to better address Lincoln's unique wetland 
constraints and get the model to more accurately account for them. Below is an 
explanation of how this "wetland open space override" works. The default of the 
model is to first subtract all undevelopable wetland area (excluded land in the 
State model), and then subtract an additional 20% of total lot area for open 
space to approximate the impact of setbacks on maximum building footprint as 
well as any lot area needed to meet parking requirements. With the "wetland 
open space override" we have implemented, the compliance model spreadsheet is 
now allowing wetland area to count towards that 20% open space requirement, 
which more accurately represents the actual development potential of Lincoln 
properties that have significant wetland area. To provide an example, 140 
Lincoln Rd (Ryan Estates) under the default model calculation method is handled 
as follows: 85% of the land area is subtracted because it is undevelopable 
(excluded) wetland area, then an additional 20% of the land area is subtracted 
for the minimum open space requirement leaving no developable area and 
therefore no modeled unit capacity. With the "wetland open space override" 
implemented, the model calculation is handled as follows: the model assesses 
which is greater - the excluded wetland area or the 20% minimum open space 
requirement - it then subtracts whichever is greater, in the case of 140 
Lincoln Rd the excluded wetland area (85%) is greater, so it subtracts that 85% 
from the total lot area leaving 15% as developable land for parking and 
building yielding a unit capacity of 87 units under the original 18 units/acre 
cap for this district. We were then able to reduce the units/acre cap to 11 
units/acre which caps the maximum number of units on this lot to exactly 87.

Units per Acre Cap Explanation: The units per acre maximum written into each 
subdistrict’s zoning is a hard cap with which developers and property owners 
will have to comply. The units per acre zoning parameter does not specify unit 
size, so it will allow for a range of unit sizes. However, the maximum 
allowable number of units will remain constrained by the size of the property 
multiplied by the units per acre cap.

Interpreting Modeled Unit Capacity Numbers: For those who have been working in 
the State Compliance Model Spreadsheet or have been speaking to people who 
have, you may be focused on the difference between four numbers provided in the 
"summary" tab of that spreadsheet: Modeled Unit Capacity vs. Dwelling Units per 
Acre Limit vs. Max Units per Lot Limit vs. Final Unit Capacity per District. 
The number you should be focused on is the Final Unit Capacity per District, 
which includes all the zoning constraints. The other unit capacity numbers 
shown reflect the application of specific constraints that are applied 
cumulatively to arrive at the overall modeled unit capacity. Here are a series 
of slides  that show 
those relationships.

For more information, visit 
https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Accountant Rec

[Claire Mount]

scheid & company   commonwealth concord   1 978 318 9600  I have used them
for years  claire mount

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 3:02 PM HEATHER MURRAY 
wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> I can recommend David Prothero in Newton. I've been using him for 20+
> years.
> https://www.cpadp.com/
>
> In Peace,
> Heather
>
>
>
>
> *Heather E. Korostoff Murray* "Truth will not lose ground by being tried."
> ~ Isaac Penington, 1616-1679
> --
> 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.

[LincolnTalk] Accountant Rec

[HEATHER MURRAY]

Hi Brian,
 
I can recommend David Prothero in Newton. I've been using him for 20+ years.
https://www.cpadp.com/
 
In Peace,
Heather
 
 
Heather E. Korostoff Murray

"Truth will not lose ground by being tried."
~ Isaac Penington, 1616-1679
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Changes to Options C and D made as recently as yesterday

[Louis Zipes]

Attention Option E war room. The attachment/image not come through.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:25 PM Karla Gravis  wrote:

> With the flurry of emails on the topic, I thought I would summarize the
> evolution of Options C and Ds, and all the changes that have been made to
> them in recent days.
>
>
>- The town submitted Option C, as developed by Utile, to the State on
>October 12th
>- There was an error found in Utile's model submission: it included an
>extra 18 acres of land that had not been approved. The HCAWG confirmed and
>corrected this mistake.
>- On November 8th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the Lincoln Woods density
>would be adjusted down to 8 units/acre from the 20 units per acre in the
>original submission for all options. Lincoln Rd density was also dropped to
>14 units per acre in the Lincoln Rd district.  150 Lincoln Rd was dropped
>from the parcel list. It is unclear whether either of these corrections has
>been sent to the State.
>- *On November 29th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the density for the
>Codman Rd and Lincoln Rd districts was reduced because of
>over-zoning concerns, across all options C-Ds.*  It is also unclear
>whether the corrections to Option C have been sent to the State.
>
> I have taken the liberty of mapping out the changes in the table below.
>
> I will leave it up to readers to interpret whether Option C as presented
> at SOTT and submitted to the State on Oct. 12th is the same as what is
> being voted on Saturday.
>
> [image: image.png]
> --
> 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.

[LincolnTalk] Changes to Options C and D made as recently as yesterday

[Karla Gravis]

With the flurry of emails on the topic, I thought I would summarize the
evolution of Options C and Ds, and all the changes that have been made to
them in recent days.


   - The town submitted Option C, as developed by Utile, to the State on
   October 12th
   - There was an error found in Utile's model submission: it included an
   extra 18 acres of land that had not been approved. The HCAWG confirmed and
   corrected this mistake.
   - On November 8th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the Lincoln Woods density
   would be adjusted down to 8 units/acre from the 20 units per acre in the
   original submission for all options. Lincoln Rd density was also dropped to
   14 units per acre in the Lincoln Rd district.  150 Lincoln Rd was dropped
   from the parcel list. It is unclear whether either of these corrections has
   been sent to the State.
   - *On November 29th, Ms. Glass confirmed that the density for the Codman
   Rd and Lincoln Rd districts was reduced because of over-zoning concerns,
   across all options C-Ds.*  It is also unclear whether the corrections to
   Option C have been sent to the State.

I have taken the liberty of mapping out the changes in the table below.

I will leave it up to readers to interpret whether Option C as presented at
SOTT and submitted to the State on Oct. 12th is the same as what is being
voted on Saturday.

[image: image.png]
-- 
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.

[LincolnTalk] Something Unexpected

[Karen Boyce]

I noticed the captivating title:

"Interwoven-Womens Lives Written in Thread" on the banner of the Concord
Museum.  The Family Trees exhibit is also presented, as it is every year,
and it piques one's imagination as to how  a story can be captured on a
Christmas Tree.

However, the "Interwoven-Womens Lives Written in Thread" was a surprisingly
poignant display of life, and of loss, on a sampler.  In a society, now,
where we ignore the pain of the death of a loved one while we go about our
busy lives, it was riveting to see how very cathartic, contemplative and
healing a sampler repaired one's soul, a stitch at a time.
Lovely and lasting, loss and grief was carefully stitched as a tribute to a
loved one.  The many hours it took for this intensely personal piece to be
completed, allowed, I am sure, the artist to work through the tender period
of grief and loss.

If you can, go to this exhibit.  It puts everything in perspective.

Karen Boyce
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] Recommended Dance Class - Registration Open for Winter/Spring

[Elizabeth Butler Everitt]

Both of my kids take Deborah’s classes and have for 5 years. She’s amazing,
the class is inclusive, and the spring performance is wonderful every year.



On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:51 PM Rachel Neurath  wrote:

> Hi Lincoln Talk,
>
> Our daughter is in the Kindergarten class with Deborah Abel in Lexington.
> It is incredible! Deborah is so welcoming, expressive, and creative. She
> teaches modern and creative dance. Registration for the winter and spring
> is open through December 8th.
>
> Here is more information: https://www.deborahabelschoolofmoderndance.org/
>
> I hope you'll check it out if you're interested!
>
> Rachel
> --
> 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.

[LincolnTalk] Recommended Dance Class - Registration Open for Winter/Spring

[Rachel Neurath]

Hi Lincoln Talk,

Our daughter is in the Kindergarten class with Deborah Abel in Lexington.
It is incredible! Deborah is so welcoming, expressive, and creative. She
teaches modern and creative dance. Registration for the winter and spring
is open through December 8th.

Here is more information: https://www.deborahabelschoolofmoderndance.org/

I hope you'll check it out if you're interested!
Rachel
-- 
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.

[LincolnTalk] SK: seeking to buy a music stand for my daughter to practice her trumpet

[Joanna Owen Schmergel via Lincoln]

Hi Folks,
Does anyone have a music stand to sell to me so that my daughter can practice 
her trumpet?
Joanna 18 Cerulean Way
617-645-9059


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
-- 
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.

Re: [LincolnTalk] District contiguity question

[Carl Angiolillo]

I appreciate Karla's clarifications, and her interpretation of the act
seems reasonable, however the wording is indeed ambiguous so I think there
is a possibility that the EOHLC could choose to interpret it differently.
(As evidenced by the recent email from Jennifer Glass)

However, this part of the explanation particularly stuck out to me:

> The only impact of having a discontiguous piece of Lincoln Rd that is
less than 5 acres is that those 2.7 acres do not count towards our minimum
requirement of 42. This is not an issue as option E adds up to 56.9 acres
not including the 2.7.

In that case I am unsure why those four non-contributing lots were included
in Option E. It seems like it would have been simpler to exclude all of
Lewis street and then pick up another fifty or so units of modeled
multi-family capacity by adding a couple units per acre at Battle Road
Farm, especially if these are unlikely to be built anyway as per the
Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternative website.

First, objections levied against Options C and D (including from LRHA
supporters) included the specter of multi-story buildings overlooking
Codman Farm and the sensitive environment in and around the Codman Corner
area. Including North Lewis seems to subject option E to the same
objections.

Second, even if one is reasonably confident that the EOHLC will permit
discontinuous subdistricts, that still leaves a small chance they will not,
potentially forcing the inclusion of the historic Lewis Street lots.

Third, the LRHA group seems to have given thoughtful consideration to each
area included or excluded, and my sense is that otherwise Option E has been
intelligently designed to be minimally compliant in order to retain as much
town control as possible. In that light, including additional acreage seems
out of place.

Note that I'm not arguing against including these lots; on balance I
personally lean towards including them as well as the rest of Lewis Street.
I'm just working my way through all the compliance options and trying to
better understand the factors behind the decisions.

Carl


On Fri, Nov 24, 2023, 10:02 AM Karla Gravis  wrote:

> *Question 1*
>
> The guidelines allow for the setup in Option E. There is no need for the
> Lincoln Rd/Lewis St parcels to be contiguous. The Compliance Model User
> Guide shows an example that deals directly with the same contiguity point
> we are discussing.
>
> https://www.mass.gov/doc/compliance-model-user-guide/download
>
>
> District 1 is comparable to our Lincoln Rd in that the (sub)district is
> made up of non-contiguous pieces, yet when calculating contiguity district
> 1a is added to district 2. In our example, Lincoln Rd east of the tracks is
> added to Ryan Estate and to Lincoln Woods, which gives us a total of 32.7
> acres of contiguous land in the multi-family district, well over 50% of the
> total.
>
> Part of the confusion comes from the loose use of the words district and
> subdistrict found in the User Guide, which has also permeated the WG’s
> exposition. It is important to note that when the guidelines talk of
> “multi-family zoning district”, it is the entire HCA district. The
> guidelines only provide a definition of district as “multi-family zoning
> district”:
>
> *“Multi-family zoning district” means a zoning district, including a base
> district or an overlay district, in which multi-family housing is allowed
> as of right; provided that the district shall be in a fixed location or
> locations, and shown on a map that is part of the zoning ordinance or
> by-law.*
>
> While there are more than a hundred uses of the word district as in
> “multi-family zoning district”, there is only mention of “subdistrict” in
> the entire guidelines, which is found in 5.c, and deals with an unrelated
> issue:
>
> *(i) the unit capacity of residential dwelling units in the mixed-use
> development district or subdistrict (as calculated by EOHLC using a
> methodology similar to that in section 5(d) which takes into account the
> impact of non-residential uses),*
>
> It is a bit unfortunate that the EOHLC did not define what they meant by
> subdistrict, but it does not really matter to our purposes.
>
> Armed with the proper definition of the word district as used in the
> guidelines, we can now check the only contiguity requirement, found in
> 5.a.(ii):
>
> *In all cases, at least half of the multi-family zoning district land
> areas must comprise contiguous lots of land.  No portion of the district
> that is less than 5 contiguous acres land will count toward the minimum
> size requirement.  If the multi-family unit capacity and gross density
> requirements can be achieved in a district of fewer than 5 acres, then the
> district must consist entirely of contiguous lots.*
>
> Option E’s multi-family zoning district is more than half contiguous. The
> only impact of having a discontiguous piece of Lincoln Rd that is less than
> 5 acres is that those 2.7 acres do not count towards our mi

Re: [LincolnTalk] The real reason we cannot require more affordable units under HCA zoning

[Bijoy Misra]

I attended the Option E open forum today.  I admire the effort of the
volunteers.
I heard that Planning Board is in the process of modifying the Zoning
by-laws.
This would mean the options are projected to be under the proposed by-law
of the future.  Can someone clarify?  Shouldn't there be more public
engagement
in changing the by-laws?
Regards,
Bijoy Misra

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:09 PM Robert Ahlert  wrote:

> So how can we be expected to vote on Saturday when key information is
> contained in ONLY the Zoning Bylaw?
>
> For example, the section on the Village Center states that only 30-40% of
> the ground floor of buildings will have to remain commercial.  Is that
> still the latest language? Perhaps you can provide the revised language to
> the residents because I know it only applies to interior portions of the
> parcel and not frontage on Lincoln Rd.  This is a critical point.  No one
> knows what the "mandatory" in mandatory mixed use actually means.  It's
> only "mandatory" that 30-40% is commercial, the rest can be parking or
> units at ground level.
>
> If Donelan's decides not to renew, wouldn't a "by right'' property owner
> (e.g. CIVICO) likely demolish that building and only leave 30-40% of the
> ground floor as commercial?  Could the developer push out the grocery store
> b/c housing is more profitable?  I worry we would end up with more of a
> mini-mart than a real grocery store
>
> *Vote Option E, this process needs more time.*
>
> Rob
> 185 Lincoln Rd, Lincoln, MA 01773
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:43 PM Margaret Olson 
> wrote:
>
>> On the draft the planning board was discussing last week at our working
>> meeting:
>>
>> As is common with working drafts, the text of the HCA zoning by-law
>> discussed by the planning board at our working meeting included all the
>> options the board might consider. The draft has text from planning board
>> members, town staff, and town counsel. It is both incomplete and at the
>> same time contains multiple approaches to the same problem, only one of
>> which will be chosen. The board has not voted on it. It is not possible at
>> this point to make any statements about what the zoning does and does not
>> include or permit.
>>
>> I’ll also point out that the errors in the HCA submission to the state
>> were inconsequential. They were corrected for completeness but the updates
>> did not change anything material.
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:56 PM David Cuetos 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The State allows towns rezoning land that can be used towards HCA
>>> compliance to require developers to set aside 10% affordable units. In
>>> order to request a higher than 10% affordable quota, towns have to submit a
>>> feasibility study to the State. As per the guidelines
>>> , the analysis
>>> must demonstrate that a reasonable variety of multi-family housing types
>>> can be feasibly developed at the proposed affordability levels, taking into
>>> account the densities allowed as of right in the district, the dimensional
>>> requirements applicable within the district, and the minimum number of
>>> parking spaces required. Lincoln hired a third-party to conduct such a
>>> study
>>> ,
>>> requesting 15% affordable units, but the State denied our request.
>>>
>>> Could the denial have been a surprise to the authors of the study?
>>>
>>> The answer is a resounding no. The feasibility analysis included a
>>> series of scenarios with deeply negative rates of return (as low as -37%).
>>> Anyone who had taken a look at the report ahead of its submission would
>>> have known that the State would not grant Lincoln the requested 15%.
>>>
>>> Was denial the only possible outcome?
>>>
>>> The answer I believe is also a resounding no. The analysis conception
>>> was deeply flawed. A more reasonable set of scenarios would have probably
>>> yielded at least 15% affordable units, perhaps even 20%.
>>>
>>> Why did Lincoln submit a report that would certainly be denied?
>>>
>>> We enter into the realm of speculation here, but there are only two
>>> reasonable explanations: lack of oversight, or satisfaction with the
>>> results.
>>>
>>> Supporting the lack of oversight explanation, there are several
>>> instances in which the HCAWG and the Director of Planning have failed to
>>> properly oversee the work of consultants. Gross mistakes were made in the
>>> model submission to the State prepared by Utile, as well as in the maps
>>> presented to the public in which some parcels were not properly represented
>>> in the maps used for public discussion. We also know that the economic
>>> analysis
>>> 
>>> referenced in the HCAWG’s site, which was prepared by a consultant for
>>> Civico a

[LincolnTalk] Signs - some background

[Sara Mattes]

There are a lot of signs popping up all over town….sales, school open houses, 
painters, roofers, etc, etc.

Years ago, we Selects worked hard to come up with a protocol for signage that 
was appearing everywhere.

Poor Tim Higgins was assigned the onerous task of being sign tzar…and he had to 
send poor DPW folks out to bring order to the chaos.

So, here is what we came up with.
Perhaps it has changed, but if not…please make life easy for Tim, et al.
It was and still is fun to read what is going on, what family has an L/S or 
Brooks grad. and what evens are happening around town.
That said, it is not bad to also be aware of some of the ancient “road rules."

1) All signs should have clear contact info for the event, company, or 
political candidate/position being promoted …anonymous was not good.
2) The town has a number of town-owned locations for signage-5 corners, 
Morningside Park, entrance to schools, Peace Park/Lincoln Rd., the intersection 
of Lincoln and 117, the intersection of Codman Rd. and 126.
3) Signs should not be up more than 2 weeks, and come down within a week after 
an event (this frees up space of other events)
4) Contractors and service workers signs should only be near  driveways while 
work is ongoing.
5) Political and other signs, on private property, should be near a clearly 
identifiable address/driveway.  This was to prevent  the “Burma Shave” effect., 
and to make the person/household that put up the sign clearly identifiable. (No 
random placements along Lincoln or Weston Rd.-famous spots for things to appear)
6) When putting signs up at the ever-popular 5 corner, place the signs behind  
the in laid granite stones, away from the intersection.  This was because signs 
were blocking drivers view as they approached from Sandy Pond Rd.

When you think about it, these were all common sense, but common sense does not 
always prevail.

Perhaps, if there have been changes, the modern day Sign Tsar can weigh in.

And, unless there has been  revisions of these efforts, let’s practice reserve. 
  It will be good to practice before the 2024 election kick into high gear and 
we can expect multiples in multiple places.










--
Sara Mattes




-- 
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.