For the second year in a row, Lincoln’s Annual Town Meeting in the Covid-19 era went off without a hitch under a tent in the Hartwell school parking lot. However, though as in any town meeting, there was some controversy — at one point resulting in 87-86 vote.
The subject of not one but two razor-thin votes was the town’s accessory apartment rules. The Planning Board asked residents on Saturday to approve several changes to the bylaw, which they outlined in video and Powerpoint presentations on April 27:
- Delete a section that requires the dwelling to be at least 10 years old, and remove the requirement that accessory apartments can increase the floor area of the original dwelling by no more than 10%.
- Add a cap on the number of accessory apartments equal to 5% of all residential units in town. This cap would not apply to affordable units, including those participating in the town’s Affordable Accessory Apartment program.
- Require accessory apartments leases to be for at least 30 days.
The Planning Board recommended the first change so that modestly sized homes could add a livable accessory apartment comprising more than 10% of the original floor area. The second change was intended to act as “insurance” to limit the impact on town services should the program prove highly popular. Board chair Margaret Olson noted that this can easily be revisited in the future.
But it was the third amendment that provoked the most discussion. The goal of the proposed 30-day rental minimum was to discourage homeowners from building accessory apartments for the sole purpose of renting them out to short-term tenants via Airbnb or similar services. Olson said she wasn’t aware of any cases in Lincoln that suggested the limit but “it has been an issue in other communities.”
Town Counsel Joel Bard pointed out that the 30-day rental minimum would apply only to accessory apartments and their associated principal dwellings, not to all rental units in Lincoln.
Sara Mattes proposed an amendment that would remove that proposed 30-day minimum. In the discussion that followed, John Carr said that fear of short-term rentals ”destroying the community” was moot. “This parade of one-day guests is the status quo… [the community] has already been destroyed and we didn’t notice.”
Eric Harris said the effective ban on Airbnb rentals was unfair to those who already hold permits for accessory apartments and favors those with single-family homes. Tom Sander also opposed the amendment, suggesting instead that the town limit the number of rentals per year for each accessory apartment owner.
The voice vote on the Mattes amendment was too close to call, and a standing vote resulted in a tally of 87 “no” votes vs. 86 “yes” votes. But the drama wasn’t over yet. Christoper Boit offered another amendment that would reduce the minimum rental period from 30 days to seven, which he said would allow more flexibility for short-term caregivers to come and go.
Speaking as a private citizen, Finance Committee chair Andy Payne noted that neither limit would apply to short-term accessory apartment occupants who are not paying rent. Additionally, “short-term rentals do give a number of our fellow residents an option to make Lincoln more affordable for them than it would be otherwise.”
Again, a voice vote was too close to call. In the standing vote, the Boit amendment was approved by a 89-82 margin.
Tim Christenfeld then proposed yet another amendment: removing the 5% cap on the number of accessory apartments. “This seems to run against a lot of what we’re trying to accomplish” in terms of encouraging economic diversity in town, he said. A cap signifies that “we support moderate-income families in Lincoln, but not too many.”
The current proportion of accessory apartments in town (64) is about 2–2.5% of the total number of units, Olson said. New ones are being created at the rate of two to three per year, meaning Lincoln would reach the 5% cap in about 20 years.
Christenfeld’s amendment was defeated in a voice vote where roughly two-thirds of residents voted no.
Eric Harris argued that “policy should not be based on one vote” (the margin for the first amendment) and the matter should be brought back at a future Town Meeting, but the vote on the original motion (as amended to reduce the rental period minimum from 30 days to seven) passed with only a handful of residents voting no, easily clearing the required two-thirds majority.