I am amazed that no one is speaking a word about the fiasco in the previous incarnation of this construction project. The outfit was called SLIP South Lincoln Improvement Project. The public meeting might have been 2019 Spring. I don't know how they folded. I had to quit. Do people recall? Bijoy Misra
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 5:59 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait <sa...@bayhas.com> wrote: > Peter- > 100% agree with all of your points, and I support your nomination of David > to the HCAWG. > > In fact- on Monday when I spoke to Jennifer Glass *The Select board > representative on the HCAWG*, she thought the modeled density was the > Maximum units allowed. > > Paula corrected this on Tuesday’s meeting and confirmed that developers > are NOT limited by the modeled density. The gross density (entire number of > acres multiplied by the maximum number of units permitted in that > Subdistrict) plus setbacks and height restrictions is what a developer is > limited to. > > Also, the mall/village center actually has 42’ height restrictions instead > of 36’ in other subdistricts. > > Sarah Postlethwait > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 3:58 PM Peter Buchthal <pbucht...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I believe I speak for many residents that we are all concerned with not >> just the problems of our state submission, but with the process, and >> messaging of the HCAWG. >> >> 1) How 18 extra acres of lots were included in our submission to the >> State without anyone on the HCAWG, Town Administration or Util Consultants >> checking the work. >> >> 2)* I believe few people in the town understand (I know I didn't until >> David's email), that unless we are careful, builders will be able build by >> right (without Town approval) up to the maximum number of units which is >> total acres including wetlands multiplied by the density factor. * So, >> even though Lincoln Woods has just 7 buildable acres, a developer would be >> able to build 400+ units (20 acres multiplied by 20 Units per Acre (density >> in Option C)). Granted, it may be difficult to build that many, but any >> new buildings could be built up to 36 feet tall, which would allow three >> floors and parking could be below ground or on the ground floor with two or >> three floors above. So, I have learned the modelled number of units is >> NOT a maximum but a calculated number that should be used for HCA >> compliance purposes only. >> >> *3) I would like the HCAWG to invite David Cuetos to be a member of the >> group to make sure the public is well informed and the submissions are >> correct. A healthy debate will only lead to better outcomes for everyone >> in the town. * >> >> Best, >> >> Peter Buchthal >> Weston Rd >> >> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:11 AM Susanna Szeto <szeto...@gmail.com> 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 <karlagra...@gmail.com> 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 <sa...@bayhas.com> >>>> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 13:16 >>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Inaccuracies in rezoning proposals submitted >>>> to the State >>>> To: David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com> >>>> CC: Lincoln Talk <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 <davidcue...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>>>> Browse the archives at >>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- >>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >>> Browse the archives at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>> Change your subscription settings at >>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
