Utile and the HCAWG would not submit proposals that don’t satisfy the letter of the law. Options D have been blessed by both parties. Options E offer a combination of approved parcels already existing in Options C and Ds.
Options D and E are compliant with the letter of the law. All of those options have 100% of their units *“located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station**, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station**.”* Notice that the law doesn’t talk about mixed-use buildings, which were actually not considered eligible for compliance until August 2023. If we believe, like is suggested below, that following the EOHLC guidance doesn’t imply compliance, then option C would be against the letter of the law too. Just to be clear, the law also does not state what “reasonable size” means. It would be easy to argue that the 635 units the guidelines demand is not reasonable for Lincoln. We are the most impacted town in the Commonwealth using the metric preferred by the State (units required as a percentage of existing inventory). > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Don Seltzer <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 14:59 > Subject: [LincolnTalk] Letter of the Law, was November 21st meeting - > question > To: LincolnTalk.org <[email protected]> > > > Several recent posts have stated that the proposed E options would satisfy > the letter of the law. That is not correct. None of the E or D options > comply with the actual Sect 3A law: > > *An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides > for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is > permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing > shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with > children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size > shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to > any further limitations imposed by **section 40 of chapter 131* > <https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000042&cite=MAST131S40&originatingDoc=NAF51346064CD11EBADB792FE1F296D32&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=593e8b1d02454ef4a26fb1afbad0e1dc&contextData=(sc.Search)>* > and > title 5 of the state environmental code established pursuant to **section > 13 of chapter 21A* > <https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000042&cite=MAST21AS13&originatingDoc=NAF51346064CD11EBADB792FE1F296D32&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=593e8b1d02454ef4a26fb1afbad0e1dc&contextData=(sc.Search)>*; > and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, > subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.* > > > That is the wording of the actual law, passed by the legislative branch. > It is clear that their intention was to locate new zoning districts within > a half mile radius of mass transit stations. > > The confusion has been created by an office in the executive branch that > has chosen to impose guidelines that are in direct conflict with the law. > > Don Seltzer > > > -- > 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.
