*I would like to share this letter a group of approximately 20 residents and I have sent to the HCA Working Group.*
Thank you again for reaching out and providing us the opportunity to ask questions about the process and your proposals. Before I dive into my list of questions, I would like to share some thoughts from our group of residents. While we were happy to see that more proposals were added last week, we worry that the proposals that have been presented do not fully represent the breadth of town perspectives. We humbly request that the WG add compliance proposals that go further in the direction of distributing more units away from Lincoln Station. To this end, we propose two examples below that we would like to share with you. In doing so, we have consciously constrained ourselves to your current choice of districts. These examples address some of the technical deficiencies and difficult-to-understand choices in options C and D. We think it would be a service to town residents if you considered adding these two to your list of options for resident consideration on November 8th. Please note, however, that we are not necessarily tied to these two proposals. If the constraints we have imposed upon ourselves were removed, other felicitous compliant possibilities could be constructed. We would consider many other permutations that include a similar number of maximum number of units built across Lincoln Station, and spread the remainder on existing multi-family developments across town. The main message we want to pass to you is that we would like to see the WG give residents as many degrees of flexibility to choose from as feasible. An instant-runoff voting mechanism could be implemented for the December 2nd vote to build consensus. Separately, we would heartily support the RLF in presenting a redevelopment proposal to town residents at Town Meeting. We think that bundling a mixed-usage redevelopment of the Mall with HCA compliance, however, would be a disservice to town residents. We have concerns about the building density proposed, the use of public grants, and the survival of commercial space. We believe these concerns would be best addressed through a special permit process. Lincoln has a proud history of providing diverse housing options for residents and we think residents ought to be trusted to continue to do so while preserving what makes Lincoln so unique and attracted most of us here. We would prefer town residents continue to watch over our shared goals of affordability, environmental impact, and general quality of life than giving free rein to developers. We would be most pleased if you or any other member of the WG offered to meet with us in person to discuss. Thank you, David Cuetos Weston Rd Proposal examples [image: image.png] This is a map and the list of parcels included in the Lincoln Rd (reduced) district. While the district acreage is smaller, the developable acreage is approximately the same as the existing Lincoln Rd district. [image: image.png] *PARCELS* 10 LEWIS ST 14 &16 LEWIS ST 15 LEWIS ST 9 LEWIS ST 1 &3 LEWIS ST 5 &7 LEWIS ST 2 LEWIS ST 144 LINCOLN RD 148 LINCOLN RD 154 LINCOLN RD 152 LINCOLN RD 8 -1 RIDGE RD 7 RIDGE RD 160 LINCOLN RD 26 LEWIS ST *List of questions:* 1. *Why are we zoning Lincoln Woods at 20 units per acre instead of 8?* The State compliance model only gives us credit for 159 units. An 8 unit per acre cap would provide us with the same number of units towards compliance. Zoning at 20 units per acre allows up to 403 units to be built. A higher number of units increases the risk of existing tenants being evicted to redevelop the parcel. 2. Parcels 161 27 0, 161 28 0 and 161 30 0 were not included in the Village District map presented at the SOTT and voted upon for submission to the State on 10/10. They were however included in the model submitted to the State, and they were also included in the new map and recalculated acreage presented at the 10/27 update meeting. *Why were these parcels added to the District after the Boards had approved the submission? Was there an internal meeting of the WG to decide it? If so, can you direct us to the minutes from that meeting? If not, who decided it? *(See below comparison of districts map and acreage before and after). 3. The compliance target for Lincoln, as presented in the guidelines Appendix and the model submitted to the State is 42.8 acres and 642 units rather than 42 acres and 635 units.* Could you please update your targets or explain why you think they are correct? We worry that Option C and D1 are not actually compliant.* *4. **Why is the RLF Mall part of every single proposal? *As you know, the proposal was never included before SOTT and no opportunity for resident evaluation and feedback regarding what the RF’s potential developer is requesting for zoning changes has been provided.* Would it not be more reasonable to give residents the option to choose if they would like to include the rezoning of the mall in the HCA package? * *5. **Shouldn’t the two RLF affiliated members of the WG have excused themselves from discussion once the Mall became a possible candidate for rezoning?* *6. **Why is the town considering applying for a grant on behalf of a private landowner? *Since the town can only apply for one MassWorks grant at a time, we would be unfairly advantaging that owner over every other owner and the general interest. We would much rather see the town apply for a grant that benefits the general interest. *7. *Several private parcels adding up to eighteen acres of land and a maximum of 332 units built (see table 1), which do not contribute a single unit towards compliance and are not necessary to meet the guidelines, have been included in our submission. *Why are those parcels included, thus locking them at 10% affordability ratio requirements?* *8. *Several public parcels have been included (see table 2), the most important of which are the DPW site and the two commuter parking lots. *What is the motivation for their inclusion? Have members of the WG discussed at any point privately or during public meetings a plan to develop the DPW site?* *9. *The inclusion of the two parking lots (plus the parking at 160 Lincoln Rd) would eliminate all parking alternatives for commuters. We understand that the WG has stated the view that any development would replace existing parking one for one. *Is the WG thinking that a new structure would include multiple levels of underground parking?* *How else would that one for one be accomplished?* We do not think that an underground parking is realistic when we are talking about narrow parcels contiguous to the railroad tracks. *10. **What was the motivation to zone Doherty’s Garage as a mixed usage parcel?* *11. **Could you please explain in detail what was the process by which the WG decided to expand the Codman Rd district below the DPW site? *We have heard that some residents approached the WG with the idea. *12. **Could you please enumerate what other requests the WG has received from residents requesting their inclusion or exclusion from the proposed districts? * 13. The model shows a developable area in Lincoln Woods of only 6.2 acres (271,903 sq ft), which is different from the denominator used for gross density calculations, which is 7.6 acres. The denominator used to be 7.0 acres before the meeting on the 27th. *Why are those three numbers different? *We could potentially be undercounting the number of units in Lincoln Woods. Those extra units could be reduced to remove parcels in other places like lower Codman Rd. 14. Column L in each one of the District tabs should be the sum of columns J and K. Instead, those three numbers seem arbitrary in our submitted model. In Lincoln Woods, to give you an example, the "Non-Public excluded Land'' is 686,802 sq ft, while the "Total excluded land" is only 605,342 sq ft. *How can "non-public excluded land" (which is a subset of the total) be higher than the "total excluded land"? *We have found similar inconsistencies in the Lincoln Rd district. If our excluded land numbers are wrong, our modeled unit numbers would be wrong as well. 15. *Could you please upload the models for alternatives D1-3 to the HCA website at your earliest convenience?* 16. *Why did the WG set a 10 units per acre cap instead of 15 on Battle Road Farm and North Lincoln in alternatives D1-D3?* The cap was set at 15 units per acre for both parcels when the WG presented it back in June. If the cap was set at that higher number, one or more of the Districts in Lincoln Station could have been removed altogether. 17. *What is the change in Lincoln Rd in options D1-3 compared to option C?* The map looks exactly the same as option C. Since you removed one parcel with zero modeled units,* why did you not just remove all of them, including Ryan Estate?* 18. A norm for options presented until Tuesday was that no District could be dropped without impacting compliance. Options Ds were presented as a sort of compromise, but the truth is that some of the districts in the list could be removed without any impact to compliance. *What was the reason Codman Corner or the Village Center were not dropped in option D-2?* 19. The proposed rezoning would cause a sharp increase in property prices, in particular for single family houses in the Codman Rd district. Assessed values will need to follow market prices. *What message do you have for property owners who would like to stay put in their houses but cannot afford higher property taxes?* 20. In WG’s communications, the case has been presented that Lincoln Station residents are more likely to commute by train than the general Lincoln population. Some of us are commuters and have not found that to be the case. *Could you please indicate if you have any supporting evidence for your hypothesis?* 21. The HCA website links to an Oriole Landing study that uses a cost per pupil of only ~$6,300. Considering that the cost per pupil at the Lincoln School according to DESE is close to $30,000, and the cost at LSHS is approximately $24,000, *why do you think the study is helpful to understand property tax implications for the town? Would you consider an updated tax impact study? *Some of our members would be happy to assist you in that task. *22. **Could you please share with us the Sasaki study of the impact of the closure of the Hanscom base on the town finances? Has the WG looked at the study? If so, are there any learnings from it you could share?* *23. **Could you please consider conducting an updated traffic study *that considers a much higher number of cars than your previous study (we think 1,000 would be a good place to start for Option C) that also includes the Five Corners junction? *24. **Could you please disclose if any of the WG members have a financial interest in the parcels that you propose to rezone?* *25. *A cursory review indicates that none of the WG members live in the Lincoln Station area.* Would you consider incorporating a resident to get a better perspective from somebody who is closer to the ground?* *26. *You must have started considering the language of the bylaws you would introduce at Town Meeting.*Could you please share with us any drafts you might have at this point?* *27. **Have you contacted the town of Weston to understand what their strategy towards HCA compliance is? *Weston is the second town with the highest percentage of units zoned relative to their existing housing stock, only Lincoln being above. We believe it would be a valuable exercise to create a coalition of similar towns that can lobby on behalf of Lincoln with the Commonwealth to pursue various common goals such as the improvement of public transportation in the area as a quid pro quo to HCA compliance. *28. **Could you please revise the language in your website and the SOTT deck relating to the grant programs tied in the legislation? Only the three original programs are named in the legislation. *The executive has stated that compliance will be considered for the other programs you include in that list, which you mention in the SOTT deck. *29. **Could you please revise the language in your website and the SOTT deck relating to HCA compliance? *AGs do no “rule” nor do they determine the rule. It would be much more precise to say there has been no judicial review on the Act. *30. **Could you please state that the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the town of Holden is not the State? *We find the ambiguity potentially misleading. *31. **Could you please revise the language that explains the rationale for exclusion of districts in the SOTT deck? *Turns of phrase like the “spirit of the law” and “less defensible to the State” when speaking of the Commons are devoid of real meaning. *32. **Why did the WG never seriously consider Farrar Pond and Lincoln Ridge condos? * Figure 1. SOTT Village Center District Map. [image: image.png] Figure 2. 10/27 update Village Center District Map. [image: image.png] Figure 3. SOTT Village Center Acreage [image: image.png] Figure 4. 10/27 Update Village Center Acreage [image: image.png] Table 1. Private land with zero units towards compliance. Address Parcel acres Maximum units built 136 LINCOLN RD 0.92 17 140 LINCOLN RD 7.88 142 150 LINCOLN RD 2.01 36 94 CODMAN RD 2.77 50 98 CODMAN RD 2.84 51 108 CODMAN RD 2.04 37 Total 18 332 We include 94 and 98 Codman Rd, although strictly they are necessary for contiguity reasons for 104 Codman Rd, which has 6 modeled units. They are included because we suspect once Lincoln Woods is recalculated with the right numbers, 104 Codman will not be necessary. Those two parcels could be removed from the list though without handicapping the argument. Table 2. Public land with zero units towards compliance Address Parcel acres Maximum units built 30 LEWIS ST 4.05 73 162 34 0 0.23 4 161 31 0 1.27 32 161 30 0 0.04 1 161 28 0 0.27 7 161 27 0 0.13 3 Total 6.01 120
-- 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.
