The additional proposal that has been sent this week to the Selects is a *compromise* across those who hold different beliefs. *The current C and D1-D3 options are very narrow in the range (for example, they all include the mall area, the Doherty's lot, Ryan Estates at high density)*. *Our objective is to allow residents to choose amongst a range of options - it is not for me or anyone to decide individually.*
We have tried to mimic the consensus-driven approach that worked successfully in Brookline. We are in fact going farther than Brookline did in allowing a higher % of units to be built by right. When quoting a specific sentence by an author, I think we need to provide the full context. I am copying the full relevant section of that post below. __________________________ *Let me explain the logic behind the separation.* *HCA compliance requires us to zone a certain number of acres to a certain density by right. What that means is that as long as the developer does not go past our height and setback bylaws, they do not need to ask the town for feedback. This is not what historically happened in Lincoln. Historically every multi-family development was a give and take between the developer and the town. In that process the town was able to extract important concessions like the number of affordable units, measures to reduce environmental impact, etc.While that give and take was quite important, for areas rezoned under HCA the town's influence is diminished even further as developers would get an override over certain town bylaws the State considers too restrictive. Among them two are chief: affordability and wetland setbacks. The state will only allow us to ask a developer to include 10% affordable units. The town’s bylaws require 15%, and historically the town has never approved anything below 25%, including some units reserved for low income households. 25% is also the lowest percentage of units for an entire development to count towards 40B State requirements. The other requirement at odds is wetlands setback. The town’s bylaws require 100’ and the State only gives us 50’. This difference would be critical in some sensitive areas like Codman Rd.Our view is that it is detrimental to the town’s general interest to allow a developer to build a large multifamily building without going through town meeting approval. The success of Oriole Landing is testament to the usefulness of town meeting: a win-win for the town and the developer. We have actually learned from other towns like Winchester that we can drive a much tougher bargain than we have done in the past.We see with skepticism claims that the Oriole Landing developer, who made an estimated $12M profit and was able to get through town meeting in nine months, does not want to go through town meeting again. Lincoln has historically not been an obstructive town towards multi-family developers and there is no reason to think that would change now that HCA has lowered Town Meeting approval thresholds from 2/3 to just a simple majority.* *I ask all residents to consider that when they vote to rezone an area, they are de facto abdicating their democratic right to influence future development.* On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:10 Andy Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > The issue wasn't whether the E proposals DO allow for development (Sarah > is correct, they do). It is whether they WILL be developed. David said in > his email "Why Lincoln should overlay HCA zoning over existing multi-family > districts (Nov 5, 2023)" : "I believe the town would be better served by > separating as much as possible the zoning exercise required for compliance > approval from actual development. Zoning existing multifamily developments > accomplishes that goal, as those properties already have the > characteristics we would like to see and they are unlikely to be > redeveloped." So the proposals are, by design, intended to comply with the > letter of the law of the HCA, but "unlikely to be redeveloped". From what > I understood, David was the one who put the initial group of E together. > That's not to say that isn't a valid strategy, it just doesn't seem to > align with what the charge of the HCAWG was supposed to do. At least my > impression was the HCAWG charge was to put forth proposals that are > compliant with the letter of the law as well as the spirit of the law, it's > just my impression that those follow the letter of the law, but not the > spirit of the law. > > Sarah - if there are specific E proposals that you think are compliant > with the spirit of the law, can you point me at those? Maybe I missed > something there and happy to give it another look. > > - Andy >
-- 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.
