I attended the last planning board meeting. There was at one point 100 people there, so I wouldn’t assume that people are not attending. And at 100 people, those 45 minutes would amount to less than 30 seconds for a question *and* an answer per person.
I did not ask a question at the meeting. Instead I spent my time listening as the meeting was presenting three new proposals that I had not seen before, and I wanted to make sure to do my due diligence on those proposals. I know there had been public requests to see the proposals before the meeting. And unfortunately the committee involved decided that was not in the public’s interest. It’s a choice I wouldn’t have made, and it made for less informed discussions of the new proposals. I plan on being at at least one of the November 8th meetings. But I really hope that even before then the questions that have been asked multiple times across multiple avenues are finally answered. Asking a question just to be heard asking a question does little. Jeff On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 3:07 PM RAandBOB <[email protected]> wrote: > I attended the last forum, which had 45 minutes for open questions. > Apparently none of the people have been so voluble on Lincoln talk attended > that meeting. There are several more meetings which are largely Feedback > meetings, so I hope you guys will attend and ask your questions. > > Ruth Ann > (She, her, hers) > > On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:44 PM, Scott Clary <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes John but the problem with the public forums the way they are > intentionally set up are pretty much a one-way Street where the public has > very little opportunity for questions and answers. It's simply the agenda > driven Town leaders driving home their agenda with fancy slides and way too > much one-sided talk. > > Kind Regards, > > Scott Clary > 617-968-5769 > > Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 9:02 AM John Mendelson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Easy to lob accusations and perhaps even some conspiracy theories on LT >> where the members of the HCAWG cannot respond. >> >> Perhaps there was an error on the submission but a more appropriate forum >> to query this would be in either of the two open forums on November 8 that >> have been widely publicized. >> >> Questions and answers on the record. >> >> John >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023, 8:53 AM Michael Dembowski <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> At what point does any town official respond to David's critique? - a >>> response is needed whether by special meeting or thru LT. >>> At risk is *any* community faith in the process that already seems >>> fractured. >>> Dialogue is welcome - whether it be acknowledgement of errors, a >>> response to each point made, or even an extended invite to David to >>> formally join HCAWG. >>> Michael Dembowski >>> Conant Road >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:09 AM Susanna Szeto <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Good questions Karla! We need someone to ask these questions at the >>>> board meeting! WHO will do it? >>>> >>>> Susanna >>>> >>>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 6:02 AM, Karla Gravis <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There are a lot of details here (which I encourage everyone to read) >>>> but 3 very important questions require answers: >>>> >>>> >>>> - Why did we submit 18 more acres in parcels to the State than what >>>> was approved by town boards for Option C? >>>> - Why are we unnecessarily zoning Lincoln Woods to a much higher >>>> number of units than we have currently, thus creating an incentive for >>>> TCB >>>> or another developer to come in and rebuild? The current affordability >>>> requirement ends in 2032. >>>> - Why are we including so many parcels that give us no compliance >>>> credit with the State but enable developers to build many more units >>>> than >>>> is required for compliance? >>>> >>>> Karla >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: ٍSarah Postlethwait <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16 >>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals >>>>> submitted to the State >>>>> To: David Cuetos <[email protected]> >>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It’s concerning that we are paying Utile at least $20k to come up with >>>>> these proposals on the town’s behalf and they have submitted it with this >>>>> many inaccuracies. >>>>> What is also is concerning is that, according to the minutes page, the >>>>> HCAWG has not had a working meeting since the end of August- right after >>>>> the guideline changes were announced and before option C was formed. No >>>>> meetings were held in September and the two October meetings were multi >>>>> board meeting presentations. >>>>> >>>>> *Is the full HCAWG reviewing the current proposals and what is being >>>>> submitted to the state?* >>>>> >>>>> Including an additional 18 acres of land in the state proposal that >>>>> has not been presented to the town and the Select board and planning board >>>>> is unacceptable. >>>>> >>>>> *The HCAWG needs disbanded for the following reasons:* >>>>> •2 members are representing the best interest of the RLF LLC (aka >>>>> trying to get the highest density possible allowed by right so they can >>>>> sell the property to Civico for more money). >>>>> •The proposals presented to the town all include unnecessary land that >>>>> does not count towards the HCA compliance target. >>>>> •Option C has been submitted to the state with this many >>>>> inconsistencies that has been pointed out by David, and 18 acres of land >>>>> being added that were not approved by the Select board or Planning board >>>>> or >>>>> the town. >>>>> •The Open meeting law has been violated numerous times by the HCAWG; >>>>> and a meeting mentioned in the select board minutes is missing from the >>>>> HCAWG minutes page entirely. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Better ways to comply with the HCA have been proposed. Stop rushing to >>>>> get a RLF centric rezoning passed and get a better Working group in place. >>>>> >>>>> *This rezoning is going to shape the future decades of Lincoln- let’s >>>>> do it thoughtfully and purposefully. * >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sarah Postlethwait >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:37 AM David Cuetos <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> *Executive Summary:* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - I identified a series of mistakes in the Option C proposal >>>>>> submitted to the State for compliance check. Option C as presented in >>>>>> the >>>>>> SOTT and approved by the Boards for submission rezoned 70 acres of >>>>>> land. >>>>>> The model that was sent to the State rezoned 88 acres, 18 acres more. >>>>>> After >>>>>> reviewing with our consultant Utile, the mistakes were confirmed by >>>>>> our >>>>>> Director of Planning. For reference, the State is asking us to rezone >>>>>> 42 >>>>>> acres. >>>>>> - The model sent to the State states the maximum number of units >>>>>> that can be built in Lincoln as a result of the rezoning is 1,679. The >>>>>> State is asking for 635 units. >>>>>> - The HCAWG’s decision to include so many parcels near wetlands >>>>>> is the main reason for this very high number of units. >>>>>> - Public land, for example the DPW, is unnecessarily included in >>>>>> our option C proposal. This has the impact of lowering our gross >>>>>> density, >>>>>> which is one of the State's requirements. >>>>>> - Options C and D1-D3 create an incentive for massive >>>>>> redevelopment of Lincoln Woods. This could be avoided with no impact >>>>>> to >>>>>> compliance. It seems that the density denominator used for Lincoln >>>>>> Woods is >>>>>> wrong as well. >>>>>> - Options D1-D3 presented last night rezone 60-75 acres and could >>>>>> also lead to >1,000 units built. >>>>>> - More foresight has been applied to the proposals our resident >>>>>> group has prepared: the maximum number of units built is exactly the >>>>>> same >>>>>> as the compliance requirement (~635). 7 of these proposals have more >>>>>> than >>>>>> 20% units near Lincoln Station. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Findings* >>>>>> >>>>>> Following multiple requests by residents over the past week, the >>>>>> HCAWG finally released the Option C submission to the public yesterday. >>>>>> The >>>>>> details of the model were surprising: *about 18 more acres of land >>>>>> were included in what was sent to the State than what was presented to >>>>>> the >>>>>> public and approved by the Boards. A number of parcels along Lincoln Rd >>>>>> that were never part of any district presented to the public were added >>>>>> to >>>>>> our submitted proposal*. While the parcels do not provide credit >>>>>> towards compliance, their inclusion would lead to up to ~325 incremental >>>>>> units given the unit per acre cap. >>>>>> >>>>>> I alerted the Director of Planning of the discrepancy. After she >>>>>> checked with our consultant, Utile, I was informed that the inclusion of >>>>>> those parcels had been a mistake. This revelation raises a few questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - *Are we submitting rezoning proposals to the State prepared by >>>>>> a third party without reviewing them?* >>>>>> - *Is there someone in the Administration or the HCAWG who has >>>>>> studied the model and understands how it works?* >>>>>> - *Who is driving the decisions about our district design? Utile >>>>>> or appointed officials?* >>>>>> >>>>>> The State uses a very basic model to calculate the maximum building >>>>>> footprint of any parcel. First, any wetlands are excluded. Then, 20% of >>>>>> the >>>>>> gross acreage is also taken out as “open land”. Finally, 45% of the >>>>>> remainder is considered parking spaces – note the irony that we are >>>>>> fantasizing about a car-free neighborhood and the State is assuming >>>>>> parking >>>>>> space will take almost as much land as the buildings*. It is >>>>>> extremely punitive to include parcels with a big wetland presence. Either >>>>>> Utile did not communicate the message or our WG/staff did not digest it, >>>>>> as >>>>>> we could not have come up with a more wetland-heavy district.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Option C includes *over 40 acres of parcels for which we get no >>>>>> credit from the State*, which we could drop from our proposal with >>>>>> no repercussions. We are *unnecessarily including 6 acres of public >>>>>> land, even conservation land, most of which is the DPW, which could have >>>>>> been left out altogether.* Including all that unnecessary public >>>>>> land lowers our gross density. It is important to note that just because >>>>>> the State does not give us credit in modeling does not mean that those >>>>>> parcels could not be developed at some future date to the maximum number >>>>>> of >>>>>> units per acre they have been rezoned to, perhaps in combination with >>>>>> other >>>>>> parcels. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are more surprises. Option C would allow TCB, the owner of >>>>>> Lincoln Woods, to build up to 403 units in that parcel. It is important >>>>>> to >>>>>> understand that the maximum number of units per acre applies to all the >>>>>> land in a parcel, not just the developable land. *TCB could in time >>>>>> evict all tenants, tear down all of the 125 two-story semi-detached >>>>>> housing >>>>>> units, and build one or more massive three-story buildings in their >>>>>> parcel >>>>>> with a lot more units.* The fact that the affordability restriction >>>>>> for Lincoln Woods ends in 2032 makes that possibility all the more real. >>>>>> This threat can be avoided if the WG puts a cap of 7 or 8 units per acre >>>>>> rather than 20. The Town gets absolutely no compliance benefit from >>>>>> having >>>>>> that higher cap since it is only modeling 159 units. *Why are we >>>>>> rezoning Lincoln Woods at 20 units per acre if we get no additional >>>>>> credit >>>>>> from it?* It is worth noting that the developable land in Lincoln >>>>>> Woods had been presented as 7.0, last night it jumped to 7.6, but if we >>>>>> look at the model submitted it only adds up to 6.2. It looks like either >>>>>> the number of units calculated for Lincoln Wood or the gross density are >>>>>> wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Putting it all together, we get an alarming vision of the >>>>>> potentialities of the rezoning exercise. The table below is a screenshot >>>>>> from the model submitted. *Up to 1,679 units could be built within >>>>>> 0.5 miles of Lincoln Station*. That is 80% of the existing total >>>>>> number of units in Lincoln (ex. Hanscom). I realize this is a worst-case >>>>>> scenario, by *why are we even talking about this risk?* All of this >>>>>> can be avoided if a little bit more thought is applied to the proposals. >>>>>> <image.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Proposals D1-D3 presented last night suffer from the same >>>>>> deficiencies. All of them would enable up to well over 1,000 units built >>>>>> in >>>>>> Lincoln.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *The proposals our group of concerned residents put together and have >>>>>> presented to the WG, PB and SB do not have any of these problems. The >>>>>> modeled capacity of our proposals, 7 of which have more than 20% of units >>>>>> and land in Lincoln Station, exactly matches the maximum number of units >>>>>> that could be built.* >>>>>> >>>>>> David Cuetos >>>>>> >>>>>> Weston Rd >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
