Understood and fair point, let's see how it shakes out with the final option and the bylaws together.
Rob On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:26 PM Margaret Olson <[email protected]> wrote: > You vote on the specific zoning language at the March town meeting. The > vote on Dec 2nd is only for which option the zoning regulations are to > address. > > This process has multiple steps: > 1. develop possible approaches > 2. choose an approach > 3. develop zoning regulations for the chosen approach > 4. Vote on the zoning > 5. Assuming the zoning passes at town meeting, send the zoning to the > state for approval > > We are at step 2: choose an approach. There are no zoning changes on the > warrant on Saturday, only a “sense of the town” vote. > > There will be public meetings and a public hearing and multiple > opportunities for the public to provide input prior to the zoning vote in > March > > Note that the preliminary verification check that we are soliciting now is > just that: a preliminary check. It isn’t a full review; that comes after we > have adopted HCA zoning. > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:08 PM Robert Ahlert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So how can we be expected to vote on Saturday when key information is >> contained in ONLY the Zoning Bylaw? >> >> For example, the section on the Village Center states that only 30-40% of >> the ground floor of buildings will have to remain commercial. Is that >> still the latest language? Perhaps you can provide the revised language to >> the residents because I know it only applies to interior portions of the >> parcel and not frontage on Lincoln Rd. This is a critical point. No one >> knows what the "mandatory" in mandatory mixed use actually means. It's >> only "mandatory" that 30-40% is commercial, the rest can be parking or >> units at ground level. >> >> If Donelan's decides not to renew, wouldn't a "by right'' property owner >> (e.g. CIVICO) likely demolish that building and only leave 30-40% of the >> ground floor as commercial? Could the developer push out the grocery store >> b/c housing is more profitable? I worry we would end up with more of a >> mini-mart than a real grocery store >> >> *Vote Option E, this process needs more time.* >> >> Rob >> 185 Lincoln Rd, Lincoln, MA 01773 >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/185+Lincoln+Rd,+Lincoln,+MA+01773?entry=gmail&source=g> >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:43 PM Margaret Olson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On the draft the planning board was discussing last week at our working >>> meeting: >>> >>> As is common with working drafts, the text of the HCA zoning by-law >>> discussed by the planning board at our working meeting included all the >>> options the board might consider. The draft has text from planning board >>> members, town staff, and town counsel. It is both incomplete and at the >>> same time contains multiple approaches to the same problem, only one of >>> which will be chosen. The board has not voted on it. It is not possible at >>> this point to make any statements about what the zoning does and does not >>> include or permit. >>> >>> I’ll also point out that the errors in the HCA submission to the state >>> were inconsequential. They were corrected for completeness but the updates >>> did not change anything material. >>> >>> Margaret >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:56 PM David Cuetos <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The State allows towns rezoning land that can be used towards HCA >>>> compliance to require developers to set aside 10% affordable units. In >>>> order to request a higher than 10% affordable quota, towns have to submit a >>>> feasibility study to the State. As per the guidelines >>>> <https://www.mass.gov/info-details/section-3a-guidelines>, the >>>> analysis must demonstrate that a reasonable variety of multi-family housing >>>> types can be feasibly developed at the proposed affordability levels, >>>> taking into account the densities allowed as of right in the district, the >>>> dimensional requirements applicable within the district, and the minimum >>>> number of parking spaces required. Lincoln hired a third-party to >>>> conduct such a study >>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/85137/Final-Draft-Lincoln-Econ-Feasility-October-6-2023>, >>>> requesting 15% affordable units, but the State denied our request. >>>> >>>> Could the denial have been a surprise to the authors of the study? >>>> >>>> The answer is a resounding no. The feasibility analysis included a >>>> series of scenarios with deeply negative rates of return (as low as -37%). >>>> Anyone who had taken a look at the report ahead of its submission would >>>> have known that the State would not grant Lincoln the requested 15%. >>>> >>>> Was denial the only possible outcome? >>>> >>>> The answer I believe is also a resounding no. The analysis conception >>>> was deeply flawed. A more reasonable set of scenarios would have probably >>>> yielded at least 15% affordable units, perhaps even 20%. >>>> >>>> Why did Lincoln submit a report that would certainly be denied? >>>> >>>> We enter into the realm of speculation here, but there are only two >>>> reasonable explanations: lack of oversight, or satisfaction with the >>>> results. >>>> >>>> Supporting the lack of oversight explanation, there are several >>>> instances in which the HCAWG and the Director of Planning have failed to >>>> properly oversee the work of consultants. Gross mistakes were made in the >>>> model submission to the State prepared by Utile, as well as in the maps >>>> presented to the public in which some parcels were not properly represented >>>> in the maps used for public discussion. We also know that the economic >>>> analysis >>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/79178/LDS-Memorandum-to-the-Town-of-Lincoln-re-Oriole-Landing--3162018-1?bidId=> >>>> referenced in the HCAWG’s site, which was prepared by a consultant for >>>> Civico at the time it was requesting approval for Oriole Landing, includes >>>> unsourced educational costs that severely understate their true value. If >>>> proper numbers had been used, the study would have indicated that the >>>> development yielded negative fiscal results for the Town. >>>> >>>> Supporting the explanation that the denial was a satisfactory result >>>> for the overseeing parties involved is the fact that throughout this >>>> process it has been clear that the RLF is trying to maximize the price of >>>> the sale for the Mall, and several members of the HCAWG have been publicly >>>> explicit in their support for meeting Civico’s wishes. Loosening >>>> affordability requirements would obviously increase the profits for Civico >>>> and therefore the price of the sale. Let us remember that certain Planning >>>> Board members presented a by-law draft last week that allowed the developer >>>> to pay fees in lieu of building affordable units. >>>> >>>> What are the flawed assumptions exactly? >>>> >>>> The study runs some internal rates of return (IRR) for a variety of >>>> multi-family housing types. The scenarios are divided into for sale >>>> developments, and rental developments. The scenarios are also divided by >>>> the type of development; there are townhome scenarios and garden style >>>> scenarios. Finally scenarios vary by size: 24 units, 45 units, and 120 >>>> units. >>>> >>>> All of the townhome scenarios deliver rates of return that are >>>> commensurate with developers’ expectations. The four garden style >>>> developments are however deeply problematic. Their IRRs are -37% and -32% >>>> for the for sale developments and 2% and -1% for the rentals. Garden style >>>> and townhome developments are modeled as costing a similar amount, but >>>> townhomes have a unit market price that is approximately 50% higher! >>>> Simply, why are the consultants modeling garden style developments when >>>> townhomes are so superior economically? No rational developer would ever >>>> develop a garden-style development assuming this set of assumptions is >>>> remotely accurate. It is important to note that the math for garden style >>>> developments would also not work at 0% affordability. >>>> >>>> Why are the for sale garden style condos so unattractive? >>>> >>>> The assumptions used by the consultant are highly flawed. First, the >>>> set of comps seems quite biased. Why are we taking Cold Brooks in Sudbury >>>> as basically the only comp to determine price per unit? If we are taking a >>>> comp from a westerly neighbor (Sudbury), why not also take an easterly >>>> neighbor (Lexington)? Since prices per square foot for the comps in >>>> Lexington >>>> <https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8838/Eco-Feasibility-Study-033023?bidId=>, >>>> per the consultants admission, are 40% higher than those for Sudbury the >>>> result, had we taken an average of the two, which would have been more >>>> appropriate, would have changed dramatically. >>>> >>>> More importantly, Cold Brooks is a new development. It is completely >>>> absurd to expect Pulte Homes, the developer of Cold Brooks and a publicly >>>> traded company, to start a development expecting negative 30% returns. >>>> Clearly the cost per unit used by our consultant is dramatically wrong. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> *Robert Ahlert* | *781.738.1069* | [email protected] >> > -- *Robert Ahlert* | *781.738.1069* | [email protected]
-- 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.
