I encourage everyone to watch the video Ben created (link copied below). It
does a great job explaining the model.

The state model does account for septics and setbacks in its 20% open space
deduction. Where the model is flawed is that it doesn’t just use 20% of the
developable land (aka non wetlands), instead it subtracts 20% of the ENTIRE
parcel from the developable land. This results in a severe underestimation
of land that is developable.

As an example, the state model has determined that 0 units can be built on
properties like Ryan Estates. Yet there are 24 units there already, without
septic/setback/etc issues.

Rob is correct in his interpretation. I would add one point: public land
also gives us zero units but, if included in the HCA proposals, can be
redeveloped at a later point. Why do the town's proposals include 6 acres
of superfluous public land, which give us no compliance credit but would be
locked at a 10% affordability requirement?

Please take a look at the video. Thank you Ben for all the time and effort
spent on this.


https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI?si=uJeutuF1eSa9VpRu


>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Margaret Olson <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:22
> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Many more than 640 units may be developed. An
> explanation
> To: Rob Haslinger <[email protected]>
> CC: Benjamin Shiller <[email protected]>, Lincoln Talk <
> [email protected]>
>
>
> The state's (implied) reasoning is that you can't actually build (zoned
> density x parcel size) on land with wetlands. This is true - the logistics
> of setbacks, height restrictions, and the need for septic and circulation
> and parking. Their concern is that towns do not claim that land with
> wetlands supports far more units than is actually the case.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:03 AM Rob Haslinger <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ben and others -
>>
>> Thanks for digging into the details of how the state compliance model
>> works. I'm a Data Scientist by profession so the video seemed clear to me
>> after a few viewings, but I'm still drinking my coffee and not firing on
>> cylinders yet so I wanted to sanity check my understanding.
>>
>> As I understand you, the crux of the problem is that the state model for
>> calculating compliant units can not be used to accurately estimate the
>> number of units that could by right be built on parcels that include
>> wetlands. This stems from two factors:
>>
>>  1) The state model underestimates buildable area because it removes 20%
>> of the area for "free space" before subtracting off the wetlands, rather
>> than after subtracting wetlands (as seems more reasonable). This lowers the
>> number of compliant units we get per parcel, which means we need more
>> parcels to comply.
>> 2) The actual number of units a developer can legally build on a parcel
>> has nothing to do with the number of compliant units, but instead is simply
>> the total parcel area (including wetlands) multiplied by the zoned density
>> which under the HCA must be 15 units per acre.
>>
>> The upshot then is that if we include parcels with wetlands, the number
>> of units that can be built by right may be many more than the number of
>> compliant units. The number of compliant units is therefore extremely
>> misleading for estimating how many units might be built by right.
>>
>> Do I correctly understand your points or have I missed something?
>>
>> Thanks again for the effort you put into digging in and explaining the
>> details to us all.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Rob Haslinger
>> South Great Road
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:27 AM Benjamin Shiller <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I spent substantial efforts to understand the Housing Choice Act
>>> Compliance model, and then create a video explaining the model and why it’s
>>> flaws along with the parcels in option C may very well lead to 1326 housing
>>> units in the rezoned area if parcels are combined, or over 1100 is parcels
>>> are not combined. Either number is well more than the 640 units the
>>> proposal is aiming for, and more than the 520 units we would seemingly have
>>> to rezone for according to the law.  Keep in mind, there are only about
>>> 2080 housing units in Lincoln excluding Hanscom.  Please consider watching
>>> the video to learn about the flaws in the state’s model and why this may be
>>> problematic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/mqXo4TPw3MI?si=uJeutuF1eSa9VpRu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.

Reply via email to