Perhaps the potential congestion might deter some, my self included, from venturing there. And, it will certainly loose its low-key vibe. It will become Newtonville.
I might well choose a more navigable route and avoid the traffic….leave the place to those who can walk. ------ Sara Mattes > On Oct 25, 2023, at 5:15 PM, Bryce Wells via Lincoln > <lincoln@lincolntalk.org> wrote: > > It's hard to know what's really behind a person's motivations to support or > not support a project like this. Heck, sometimes they may not truly know. > > Having said that, the only folks that I tend to empathize with are abutters > to the project area who do not support the development as it will materially > impact their immediate home area (though we can quibble as to what degree > since there is more densely configured living in that area already compared > to the rest of the town). > > I still support this project but I understand if someone like that opposes > it. Everything else comes off as conjecture. Home values? Good golly, isn't > that the go to bogeyman... I remember all the warnings about decreasing / > increasing home values when we voted on the school. Wildlife? I'm not an > expert and while the maps that someone shared were interesting to look at, it > seems glossed over that there's already a wide train path cutting right > through there. Also, are apartments of 3 stories more intimidating than > apartments that are only 1 or 2 stories? I missed the data on this. Losing > our rural identity? The area we're talking about is already "developed" - > certainly much more than the rest of town - and anything we decide to do in > that footprint doesn't lessen the 80+ miles of trails, acres and acres of > conservation land, etc. > > My opinion is that we're talking about an area that already serves as a > central point in the town, our train station, our 1 restaurant, our 1 cafe, > our 1 grocery store, 1 of our 2 post offices, 2 of our complexes, etc. and > the central question is, DO we want to utilize that area for additional > development... and if so, how? > > Thanks for reading this far if you have... > > Bryce Wells > 112 Trapelo (at least 2 miles away from the proposed site and very much in > favor of it) > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:34 PM Scott Clary <scottclar...@gmail.com > <mailto:scottclar...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> I could be wrong john, but I don't believe declining property values is a >> primary driver for opponents. Whether you believe it or not, that's >> something I've heard very little of and I am confident concerns few except >> perhaps the people directly impacted in the mall/ station area who could >> have a very large, concentrated development on top of them. And perhaps some >> people who are already on cut through streets that will have a lot more >> traffic cutting through with such a huge concentration at Lincoln Station. >> I'm not sure where your confidence is coming from that we will create a low >> Auto impact development with that many units at that price range as people >> are going to be owning cars because they still have to get places other than >> something within a short walk. >> >> NOT building big apartment and commercial buildings with multiple stories in >> such a dense arrangement with big footprints would be a disservice to >> wildlife??? >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Scott Clary >> 617-968-5769 >> >> Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 4:08 PM John Mendelson <johntmendel...@gmail.com >> <mailto:johntmendel...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> I am glad someone finally said the quiet part out loud. >>> >>> I've long believed what is driving much of the opposition here is the fear >>> of declining property values. I get it as one of the main points of the >>> HCA is to drive down prices by increasing supply. But the reality is that >>> those who are already "in the game" of home ownership will not lose out by >>> lower home prices on the market level. But more people might actually be >>> able to afford to buy their first home or condo here. >>> >>> Increasing density at the station/mall will not destroy conservation land, >>> hiking trails, farmland, nor wildlife. But It may just get people out of >>> their cars a bit more and reduce the carbon footprint of our housing >>> stock--multi-family homes inherently have lower construction and energy >>> costs than do single-family dwellings. >>> >>> There will be no clear-cutting. The majority of the development, should it >>> occur at all, will be on existing parking lots and in place of tired >>> buildings at the mall. Our wildlife is already well-adapted to life in >>> suburban and even urban areas and the area around the mall is already >>> filled with buildings, lights, and asphalt. >>> >>> The institutional core of Lincoln is perfect for a walking and biking, >>> car-lite lifestyle. One can get to the grocery, school, library, and maybe >>> even the new community center on foot or bike, all on a protected roadside >>> path. As someone who has an office at Lincoln Station and walks or bikes >>> to work everyday, I recommend it highly. My kids never had to wait in a >>> drop-off line as they could walk or bike to school every day. This is >>> simply not the case in North Lincoln given the state of the route 2 and >>> route 2A crossing. We are very lucky to have this lifestyle and the open >>> space all around that is protected in perpetuity. >>> >>> Voting to not comply would be a disservice to our town, our county, and our >>> state. Not to mention the people and wildlife who want to live here or >>> already do. >>> >>> John >>> >>> PS I urge everyone to read the Globe Spotlight Team's series of articles on >>> this very topic here: >>> https://apps.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/special-projects/spotlight-boston-housing/watertown-house-family-homeownership/?s_campaign=housingproj:na >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 2:16 PM maureen <maur...@mochuck.com >>> <mailto:maur...@mochuck.com>> wrote: >>>> I agree with including "Not Comply" as an option to vote on. What do we >>>> gain by rushing to comply with the state's guidelines? Has anyone done a >>>> real cost-benefit analysis for Lincoln residents if we increase census to >>>> these numbers--including increased costs for services such as fire, >>>> police, ambulance, and roads? What do we lose from the state regarding >>>> funding if we do not comply or delay compliance at this time? >>>> What will be the costs of increased taxes to an already burdened town? >>>> What do we lose in property values if we destroy what makes Lincoln >>>> special--the conservation land, hiking trails, wildlife, farmlands, less >>>> traffic, and lower housing density? We still will not gain from >>>> affordable housing. >>>> >>>> My husband and I would vote "No Comply"!! >>>> >>>> Maureen Malin and Chuck Kaman >>>>> On 10/25/2023 9:08 AM EDT Robert Ahlert <robahl...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:robahl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Carl, as always your intentions are noble. >>>>> >>>>> And I think this is fundamentally what people need to decide for >>>>> themselves and not have the HCAWG making decisions for the people. I >>>>> have been and am still advocating for 5-7 options at the Dec 'Sense of >>>>> the Town'. >>>>> >>>>> Here is how I personally would lay out the options (feel free to >>>>> disagree, anyone, please) ... >>>>> >>>>> 1. Full S. Lincoln - current Option C >>>>> 2. 80/20 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family area >>>>> 3. 50/50 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family area >>>>> 4. 20/80 S. Lincoln + other current Multi-family areas (what i have been >>>>> proposing, not yet included in any Options by HCAWG including the "Ds") >>>>> 5. Full other current Multi-family areas >>>>> 6. No Comply >>>>> >>>>> I ask everyone to write to the Selects and discuss with their neighbors >>>>> and friends to open this process back up and to let some other voices >>>>> into the HCAWG! >>>>> >>>>> Also please start paying attention to the Max Units calculations as show >>>>> in our town's submission to the State using Option C. Once developer's >>>>> get control 'by right', I'm not sure own town is prepared to defend >>>>> itself. More to come ... >>>>> >>>>> Rob >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:33 AM Carl Angiolillo <carlangioli...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:carlangioli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> Rob, I'm glad we're in alignment about focusing on areas of existing >>>>> density and infrastructure. Several of the options you and the group >>>>> proposed seem promising. One remaining point of disagreement is how much >>>>> to value walkability and proximity to transit when comparing options. I >>>>> don't think we need to become Switzerland or turn back the clock 100 >>>>> years or for anyone to live an environmentally-friendly car-free life for >>>>> that to be worth prioritizing. >>>>> >>>>> > the Route 2 corridor by far makes the most sense >>>>> >>>>> Route 2 can certainly support much higher volumes of car traffic than >>>>> Lincoln road but it's not an infinite traffic sink. Regional traffic >>>>> including on Route 2 is increasing and Boston apparently now number four >>>>> in the world for congestion ref https://inrix.com/scorecard/. Especially >>>>> if neighboring towns similarly zone for car-dependent developments then >>>>> driving commutes will continue to get worse -- not just on Lincoln Road >>>>> but on Route 2 and elsewhere. I'm definitely not opposed to analyzing the >>>>> impact on specific hotspots like five corners, just pointing out that if >>>>> your goal is to minimize the inevitable increase in rush-hour car traffic >>>>> that accompanies new housing then it seems paradoxical to support housing >>>>> where people have no choice but to drive for every trip. >>>>> >>>>> In the short term, putting housing units in places that allow residents >>>>> to walk to stores and take a bus or train to work reduces traffic even if >>>>> it only starts off displacing 10% of car trips compared to a similar >>>>> quantity of housing along Route 2. And in the longer term, even if you >>>>> believe that the displacement will be negligible today, this provides a >>>>> safety release valve that allows additional trips to shift to alternate >>>>> modes as regional traffic gets worse (likely) or walkability/transit gets >>>>> better (maybe). >>>>> >>>>> That's why resigning ourselves to car-dependent development in an attempt >>>>> to minimize traffic in a specific neighborhood or intersection seems >>>>> penny wise and pound foolish to me. Even if it makes the local impact >>>>> less acute it makes the broader problem more entrenched and when we >>>>> repeatedly apply this logic across towns and generations we end up in a >>>>> tragedy of the commons with traffic backing up at five corners anyway. >>>>> Avoiding that fate requires a coordinated long-term response which is why >>>>> I'm in favor of prioritizing housing where people have more options. >>>>> >>>>> > Remember from the Village Center survey, people don't want that density >>>>> > near L. Station >>>>> >>>>> This makes it sound as if a majority of respondents opposed density in >>>>> Lincoln Station, but as per your screenshot two-thirds of respondents >>>>> felt that greater density there was an important or neutral priority >>>>> which I interpret to mean they either actively want it or don't care, so >>>>> it seems like at most one third were opposed. Further, some of those >>>>> opposed respondents might be equally opposed to the other HCA options so >>>>> I'm not sure this survey data provides enough information to support or >>>>> reject any specific option. >>>>> >>>>> I really do appreciate your hard work in coordinating alternative options >>>>> for the town to discuss though, and hopefully we have the chance to get >>>>> more feedback at upcoming meetings. >>>>> >>>>> Carl >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 6:04 PM William Broughton <wbroughto...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:wbroughto...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> I agree. I think the "Option C" as presented is problematic in many ways >>>>> - potential negative impacts on: environment, wildlife, affordable >>>>> housing, traffic, pollution, town infrastructure, taxes, etc. >>>>> >>>>> There needs to be more discussion and input, and frankly with the HCA >>>>> guidelines changing multiple times, the limited community input received >>>>> 6, 9, or 12 months ago is irrelevant at this point. >>>>> >>>>> I hope that the HCAWG and its consultants present real, viable >>>>> alternatives in D1 and D2 tonight, and not half hearted attempts that are >>>>> really intended to steer back to Option C. As we have seen from the >>>>> alternatives shared by various residents, there are many potential paths >>>>> to compliance that should be considered. >>>>> >>>>> Will Broughton >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:29 AM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:samat...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> Bravo! >>>>> Let us re-visit ALL choices and discuss, as a community, the pros and >>>>> cons of each. >>>>> We used to have town-wide planning exercises all the time and that has >>>>> lead to the creative and progressive development we have today. >>>>> >>>>> When did we stop trusting the whole? >>>>> >>>>> Let us trust each other-all of us- to engage and problem-solve…and find a >>>>> consensus “path forward.” >>>>> >>>>> The HCA can be a part of that, but not the whole. >>>>> We should not let it hijack of democratic solutions to building a legacy >>>>> we can be proud of. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------ >>>>> Sara Mattes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 24, 2023, at 9:12 AM, Robert Ahlert <robahl...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:robahl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Carl. I think that is where this community resident group >>>>>> (growing by the day) is headed with this. When options drafted back in >>>>>> the spring and summer included places like Oriole Landing, Commons, >>>>>> North Lincoln, etc, that made sense. Why were they removed? >>>>>> >>>>>> I think if the MBTA were on its game and able to move people >>>>>> efficiently, the commuter rail area would make a lot of sense. But the >>>>>> MBTA has made absolutely NO COMMITMENT to improving rail service and is >>>>>> in fact going in the wrong direction. >>>>>> >>>>>> So with that, we need to zone+build where there is already multi-family >>>>>> housing in place (no green field development) AND where the >>>>>> infrastructure ACTUALLY exists. Therefore, the Route 2 corridor by far >>>>>> makes the most sense. Is that a car-centric approach? Yes. Is America >>>>>> Europe or will it ever be? No. We cannot wind back the clock 100 years >>>>>> and magically turn ourselves into Switzerland. Should we do nothing? No, >>>>>> we should put 130 units = 20% by the commuter rail via HCA zoning. If >>>>>> that works out, we can add more. But don't give away everything to HCA >>>>>> zoning now, we don't have to. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wishful thinking that the MBTA will get its act together will ruin the >>>>>> rural character of S. Lincoln (note the massing and volume of structures >>>>>> proposed). >>>>>> >>>>>> Remember from the Village Center survey, people don't want that density >>>>>> near L. Station and they DO want to preserve rural character... >>>>>> >>>>>> <image.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And again, why rush? This isn't due until December 2024, yes there is a >>>>>> Town Meeting schedule to manage but this is too important to rush it. >>>>>> Let's open it back up to 5 to 7 options for folks to choose from in >>>>>> December to get a real sense of the town. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pay very careful attention to Options D1 and D2 tonight at the Planning >>>>>> Board and see if they are both lemons like the false choices at SOTT. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:44 AM Carl Angiolillo >>>>>> <carlangioli...@gmail.com <mailto:carlangioli...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> For what it's worth, as one of the lots under consideration on Codman Rd >>>>>> I support all of the HCA options that have been presented so far and I >>>>>> look forward to seeing the additional proposals from the HCWG and from >>>>>> citizen efforts like Rob Ahlert et al. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would have no objection to swapping out logistically constrained >>>>>> acreage on Codman Rd and elsewhere for more practically buildable >>>>>> acreage near Lincoln Station or other areas of existing density served >>>>>> by public transit. >>>>>> >>>>>> (As previously mentioned, my primary objection would be to zoning that >>>>>> encourages car-dependent greenfield development due to the unnecessarily >>>>>> higher natural and environmental impact.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> Codman Rd >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 3:36 PM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> Whether a development can accommodate a septic for a given building size >>>>>> or not is a different matter. The issue at hand is that the town has >>>>>> submitted a compliance proposal to the State that uses a 50’ wetland >>>>>> buffer instead of 100’. If we rezoned and the tried to stop a developer >>>>>> from building on that 100’ buffer, we will have no leg to stand on. A >>>>>> lot of these problems are exacerbated by sending a poorly thought out >>>>>> proposal that unnecessarily includes sensitive land. There are better >>>>>> proposals that do not put wetlands at risk. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 21:44 Margaret Olson <s...@margaretolson.com >>>>>> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>> wrote: >>>>>> Yes the state used its definition of developable land to calculate how >>>>>> many acres and how many units we must zone for. This definition ignored >>>>>> many aspects of a property and the regulations that constrain its >>>>>> development, not the least of which is septic. My experience on town >>>>>> boards suggests that septic requirements are going to be far more >>>>>> limiting than the wetlands regulations . >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 9:17 PM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> The State is very clear what it considers developable land. Land outside >>>>>> the 50' wetland buffer is developable. Lincoln has historically excluded >>>>>> land between the 50' and 100' buffer. This difference has been a known >>>>>> fact to the Committees and the Administration throughout this process. >>>>>> The State has calculated our developable land using that criteria and >>>>>> our models use those same assumptions. It would be absurd to pretend >>>>>> that we can tell the EOHLC an area is developable and then turn around >>>>>> and try to prevent a developer from building in that same spot. One of >>>>>> the main goals of the HCA is to prevent towns from that kind of >>>>>> obstructionism. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there was any doubt about what I have just exposed, I do not >>>>>> understand why the Boards failed to consult with legal counsel in due >>>>>> time. It seems irresponsible to submit a proposal to the State and ask >>>>>> residents to vote on it at Town Meeting when basic questions like this >>>>>> have not been addressed. It is for this reason that I and many other >>>>>> residents think that we are unnecessarily rushing this process, failing >>>>>> to properly analyze all the different impacts of this critical decision >>>>>> we are putting in front of residents. >>>>>> >>>>>> I applaud the decision to bring this to town counsel now. However, I >>>>>> would encourage residents to take whatever advice is provided with some >>>>>> skepticism. Not for nothing this is the same legal counsel who first >>>>>> told residents that HCA was an optional program, and now, without any >>>>>> judicial review intervening, is telling us that compliance is mandatory. >>>>>> This is the same legal counsel whose partner is giving another town the >>>>>> opposite advice we are receiving. We need independent legal advice,not >>>>>> advice from one whose continuing employment depends on individuals with >>>>>> strong views on this matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would be happy to walk through the details of why the inclusion of DPW >>>>>> and the parcels south and east of it is an unnecessary part of Option C. >>>>>> Removing those parcels would bring us back to the Codman Corner >>>>>> district, presented in June by the HCA WG. All it would be required for >>>>>> us to do then would be to actually model the number of units to our >>>>>> stated number of units per acre, rather than an arbitrarily lower number >>>>>> like we do today. Having done those two things, we would still have 639 >>>>>> units and would continue to meet all the guidelines for approval by the >>>>>> EOHLC. I do not understand why the WG decided to raise the number of >>>>>> units per acre to 18, rather than the previous 15, if they were >>>>>> simultaneously planning to lower the number we use for modeling. It >>>>>> really seems from the outside like they were pushing us to develop the >>>>>> DPW and wetland buffer areas. Perhaps people with more knowledge of what >>>>>> happened can help me understand it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not want people to take away from my email that I support a >>>>>> reformed Option C with the changes I have underlined. While undoubtedly >>>>>> better than what was presented to residents, it is still a very >>>>>> problematic proposal. I am happy to say that I am working on a set of >>>>>> compliant proposals with a group of motivated smart Lincolnites who are >>>>>> equally concerned about the impact of this proposal in our town. We >>>>>> believe that those proposals would do a much better job of preserving >>>>>> what makes Lincoln great and ensuring that we continue to plan Lincoln's >>>>>> future in a democratic, thoughtful way. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Cuetos >>>>>> Weston Rd >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 3:33 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> We need to be clear on the state vs local wetland buffer and how it is >>>>>> being applied: >>>>>> The State model requirement uses a 50' buffer for wetlands. Ms. Vaughn, >>>>>> our Director of Planning and Land Use and member of the HCAWG, confirmed >>>>>> that we can only exclude wetlands and a 50' buffer. That is how the HCA >>>>>> Option C model is being submitted >>>>>> Lincoln has a requirement of 100' setback for wetlands >>>>>> We are submitting a plan to the State saying: "We propose to meet our >>>>>> 635 minimum required units with this plan that uses a 50' setback" - are >>>>>> we suggesting we can then restrict the actual building of such units by >>>>>> enforcing a local 100' setback? Are we submitting a model that then we >>>>>> plan to renege on? >>>>>> >>>>>> The guidelines state the following: "The multi-family zoning districts >>>>>> required by Section 3A should encourage the development of multi-family >>>>>> housing projects of a scale, density and aesthetic that are compatible >>>>>> with existing surrounding uses, and minimize impacts to sensitive land." >>>>>> >>>>>> Wetlands are considered "sensitive land". Why are we unnecessarily >>>>>> including so much of it? >>>>>> >>>>>> While the submission form is available online, the model and other >>>>>> documents are not. Please see below for "error message". >>>>>> <image.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:09 PM Joan Kimball <selene...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:selene...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> Title V is different from the wetlsnd protection act. >>>>>> >>>>>> Title V deals with septic systems which also has setback requirements >>>>>> that we must follow. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are subject to both our local wetlands bylaw and the state wetlands >>>>>> protection act both of which give the Commission jurisdiction within 100 >>>>>> feet of a wetland and 200 feet from a perrennial stream. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, 1:26 PM Karla Gravis <karlagra...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:karlagra...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> That is inaccurate. The State uses a 50' buffer to model developable >>>>>> land, per Massachusetts Title 5 Wetlands Protection Program Policy (see >>>>>> link below). Lincoln's Director of Planning and Land Use (Paula Vaughn) >>>>>> confirmed that we can only exclude the wetlands and 50' setback in our >>>>>> HCA model, not the 100'. The 100' buffer is a local Lincoln ordinance. >>>>>> >>>>>> By submitting Option C to the State, according to the model rules, we >>>>>> are submitting with a 50' buffer. Once it is approved by the State with >>>>>> a 50' buffer, it would be difficult for us to think we can apply our >>>>>> local 100' buffer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Link to State wetland >>>>>> protectionshttps://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.mass.gov/info-details/wetlands-program-policy-86-1-title-5-and-the-wetlands-protection-act> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>> From: Margaret Olson <s...@margaretolson.com >>>>>> <mailto:s...@margaretolson.com>> >>>>>> Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:56 >>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road >>>>>> To: David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>> >>>>>> CC: Lincoln Talk <lincoln@lincolntalk.org >>>>>> <mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The proposed zoning makes no change to our wetlands regulations. I >>>>>> believe the 100' buffer is state law not Lincoln. >>>>>> >>>>>> The HCA does not require and and our proposed zoning does not include >>>>>> any changes to our wetlands regulations. >>>>>> >>>>>> The parcels at the end of Codman Road and the DPW are included to make >>>>>> all the (many, complicated) numbers and rules work. >>>>>> >>>>>> The DPW is town owned - it is municipal property. Selling municipal >>>>>> property requires a vote of town meeting. Municipal property does not >>>>>> count as developable land for the purposes of the HCA. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Option C state submission is published on the housing choice working >>>>>> group page: >>>>>> https://www.lincolntown.org/1327/Housing-Choice-Act-Working-Group. >>>>>> >>>>>> Margaret >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Cuetos <davidcue...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:davidcue...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> I have three questions for Lincoln residents and board members involved >>>>>> in the HCA rezoning process >>>>>> >>>>>> Are Lincoln residents comfortable with loosening our wetland >>>>>> restrictions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Option C includes only a 50' buffer from wetlands, as that is what is >>>>>> allowed by the State. Lincoln has historically required a 100' setback. >>>>>> When a given district is rezoned to make it HCA compliant, Lincoln is de >>>>>> facto aligning with the State's wetlands characterization and 50' >>>>>> buffer. Thus, the rezoning would make it possible to build in areas in >>>>>> which it would not be possible to build today under Lincoln's >>>>>> conservation practices. I have attached pictures of Codman Rd wetlands >>>>>> from the State map compared to Lincoln's, so that everyone can see how >>>>>> different they look. Option C exacerbates this issue because it contains >>>>>> a large wetland area. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Codman Rd district in option C was made larger than the Codman >>>>>> Corner district presented by the HCAWG in June, by extending into >>>>>> wetlands. Why are we making it possible to build three-story >>>>>> multi-family buildings on wetland buffers? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why did the HCA WG decide to newly include 10 acres of parcels 171_26_0 >>>>>> through 171_29_0, that the town considers to be mostly wetlands? There >>>>>> was no technical reason to include those parcels . The proposal would >>>>>> still be well within the required lower bounds of units, total acreage, >>>>>> subdistrict acreage if those parcels were removed. Images below. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why was the DPW site included in the HCA district? Is there a plan to >>>>>> redevelop that parcel and move the DPW to a different location in town? >>>>>> >>>>>> The DPW site is part of Option C's district, which means it could >>>>>> eventually be redeveloped at 18 units/acre. We get no credit by >>>>>> including the DPW land as part of the HCA district, since the state does >>>>>> not consider it developable land today as it is owned by the town. >>>>>> However, by including it in the HCA district, we are preventing any sort >>>>>> of future mandate that would require more than 10% affordable housing on >>>>>> that parcel. I am curious as to the reason the DPW was included when we >>>>>> get no "credit" for it. One proposal I have heard is that the DPW site >>>>>> could be moved to the Transfer Station, is that the WG's reasoning? >>>>>> >>>>>> There are other areas in town we could rezone that would prevent these >>>>>> issues. In fact, some of the proposals that were put forward by the WG >>>>>> in the first stages of the process were more in-line with Lincoln's >>>>>> approach to rezoning and development, which put a high value on >>>>>> ecological sustainability, preservation of its rural character and >>>>>> affordability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Codman Rd district >>>>>> >>>>>> Local map >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> State map >>>>>> https://maps.massgis.digital.mass.gov/images/dep/omv/wetviewer.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Codman Corner district (June proposal) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Codman Rd district see area in green (Option C) >>>>>> >>>>>> Developable area around Lincoln Station >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:29 PM <lincolnt...@jenniemorris.com >>>>>> <mailto:lincolnt...@jenniemorris.com>> wrote: >>>>>> Jeff, I’m not an architect either, but am pretty sure the Onigman lot >>>>>> would never host 20, let alone 15 units, unless Lincoln decides to adopt >>>>>> municipal sewage. A development isn’t just a building footprint; it >>>>>> needs to conform to setbacks, building codes, parking access and >>>>>> probably many other standards. (Full disclosure: I wasn’t even able to >>>>>> get a permit for a single-car garage on a 2-acre lot, due to such >>>>>> restrictions). The economics would probably have to be much more >>>>>> favorable than they are at present. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I also enjoy walking to town on a trail that takes me to Todd Pond Road >>>>>> – a much quieter route than Codman Rd.! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jennie >>>>>> >>>>>> Bowles Terrace >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Lincoln <lincoln-boun...@lincolntalk.org >>>>>> <mailto:lincoln-boun...@lincolntalk.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff B >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 11:43 AM >>>>>> To: David Onigman <davidonig...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:davidonig...@gmail.com>> >>>>>> Cc:lincoln@lincolntalk.org <mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at the town's GIS, it looks to me like your 2.8 acre plot could >>>>>> definitely have a much larger footprint than the existing house, even >>>>>> with the wetlands on the property. And at 15 units an acre, it could >>>>>> potentially house 20+ units? What was your sourcing for the inability >>>>>> to develop further? I admit, I'm one of the few town residents who is >>>>>> not an architect so I might be missing something. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The HCA working group says that this rezoning would potentially shift 11 >>>>>> units into 180 units, so I'm just trying to pin down where these could >>>>>> potentially be. If most of the Codman owners are not planning on taking >>>>>> advantage of this change (or cannot), then excluding these lots from a >>>>>> HCA plan would seem to cost little to the goals of increased housing >>>>>> stock. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In general I'm really struggling with the general issues of this HCA >>>>>> plan that takes a very residential street now -- Codman -- and rezones >>>>>> it to something entirely different. It seems like not just taking a >>>>>> downtown area and densifying it, but rather expanding the downtown area >>>>>> dramatically in a way that doesn't feel like the Lincoln we all know now >>>>>> and (when time allows) walk through to get to Codman Farm and Donelans >>>>>> or the Tack Room. The feel of houses like yours really makes the walk >>>>>> feel more like being on one of our many trails in town, versus on a busy >>>>>> street sidewalk. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Add my voice to all the others on here that would be very interested in >>>>>> seeing a HCA compliant proposal that doesn't include the Codman >>>>>> subdistrict. If we as a town discover we love the feel of the new >>>>>> downtown housing project awaiting a greenlight, we can always add a >>>>>> Codman district later and double the effect. But we don't have the >>>>>> luxury of clawing it back ever, and this current plan looks like a blind >>>>>> leap that would cost a feel that many in the town cherish. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff Birchby >>>>>> >>>>>> Twin Pond Lane >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>> From: David Onigman <davidonig...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:davidonig...@gmail.com>> >>>>>> Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 10:35 AM >>>>>> Subject: [LincolnTalk] HCA & Codman Road >>>>>> To: <lincoln@lincolntalk.org <mailto:lincoln@lincolntalk.org>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I have been hesitant to engage in the housing discussion on LincolnTalk, >>>>>> but after reading a few recent comments about the motives for some of >>>>>> the Codman Road residents and their advocacy in favor of the Housing >>>>>> Choice Act and our road being included in it, I am inspired to weigh in. >>>>>> >>>>>> I live on Codman Road and was one of the residents that advocated in >>>>>> favor of my area of South Lincoln to be included in the proposals >>>>>> submitted to the Commonwealth to be in compliance with the Housing >>>>>> Choice Act. >>>>>> >>>>>> I consider myself a housing advocate and generally speaking am in favor >>>>>> of the legislation. There is a housing crisis in this country, and in >>>>>> Massachusetts, and every town can do their part to contribute a small >>>>>> bit to increased inventory to support this issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also consider myself an advocate of public transportation and am a >>>>>> frequent user of the commuter rail. My family is able to currently be a >>>>>> one car family largely in part to my proximity to the train into Boston. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am in support of all plans that include these subdistricts to be as >>>>>> close to the Commuter Rail as possible, as I believe that to be in the >>>>>> spirit of this legislation, and also what is best for our town planning. >>>>>> >>>>>> I love Lincoln, I think Lincoln is an amazing place to live and raise >>>>>> children. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lincoln is over 40% conservation land and nothing is ever going to >>>>>> change that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that the effects of the HCA to loosen a bit of the zoning laws >>>>>> in certain subdistricts to not be by-right single-family housing is a >>>>>> good thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe towns like Lincoln that are looking to support a small >>>>>> commercial center and maintain services like a grocery store need to >>>>>> modify a bit of the by-right zoning to ensure that things like having a >>>>>> grocery store are sustainable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me clarify that my beliefs are not driven by any personal financial >>>>>> aspirations linked to my property. For those seeking assurance, my lot, >>>>>> surrounded by wetlands, isn't viable for further development. Our family >>>>>> home, built in 1951, has always stood here, and we have no intentions of >>>>>> leaving. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I am just here to say - yes, in my backyard, I support the HCA, I >>>>>> support Codman road being included as one of the subdistricts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Every town can do a small part to support more housing inventory and >>>>>> every town can do a small part to allow more housing near public >>>>>> transportation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not looking to engage in any LincolnTalk back and forth on my >>>>>> thoughts on this, but if anyone is looking to discuss these topics >>>>>> further offline, please feel free to write me an email and we can grab a >>>>>> cup of coffee. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>>> To post, send mail tolinc...@lincolntalk.org >>>>>> <mailto: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 tolinc...@lincolntalk.org >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Robert Ahlert | 781.738.1069 | robahl...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:robahl...@gmail.com>-- >>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>> <mailto: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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Robert Ahlert | 781.738.1069 | robahl...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:robahl...@gmail.com>-- >>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org >>>>> <mailto: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 >>>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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.
