More than 200 people turned out (virtually) to ask questions, urge a go-slow approach and ask for more options at a public forum on the most recent proposals for complying with the Housing Choice Act.
A new group called the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA) formed to propose other options that would comply with the state law but concentrate fewer housing units in the mall/train station area. Their website asks for a “full spectrum of options, not just a small subset chosen by a few” and presents 18 alternatives that they say will satisfy the state’s complex requirements.
The group has also asked the Housing Choice Act Working Group to decouple the mall property from all of the proposals. Several attendees at the online forum also asked to have a “none of the above” option on the nonbinding ballot at the December 2 Special Town meeting where a ranked-choice “sense of the town” vote aims to settle on a single option that will be formally voted on at the Annual Town Meeting in March.
Among the LRHA’s 55 members are residents who have posted numerous emails to LincolnTalk to ask questions and voiced objections. On November 7, HCAWG posted a document with detailed answers to dozens of questions it’s received from residents.
Town sentiment among those who’ve participated in public meetings has seesawed over time. Residents favored a plan that would concentrate allowed multifamily housing in South Lincoln, which is reflected in Option C that the town recently submitted to the state for a compliance check. In recent weeks, LRHA members have urged HCAWG to locate more of the required 635 housing units in North Lincoln and demanded that it offer some of the group’s alternative options on December 2.
A summary of the four options to be considered on December 2 (click image to enlarge).
Resisting pressure
But HCAWG has thus far stood firm in mandating a choice among just four options — Option C and three more (D1, D2, and D3) that were formulated after the second wave of public input and presented on October 24. “As a working group, we’ve decided to stick with the range of proposals that we have right now,” Select Board member Jennifer Glass at the November 8 forum (slide deck here). On November 21, “we will have a discussion as to what the final details are.”
The HCA issue is a discussion item but is not on the actual warrant on December 2 “under current planning,” Glass said. The Special Town Meeting is intended to focus on votes around the community center and expansion of The Commons at Lincoln. “We thought originally we would make a decision [on an HCA option] based on the State of the Town meeting, but we heard from the community that it was important to think about some additional options.”
Another objection to the current proposals is that, although they require at least 10% of the multifamily units to be affordable, they do not meet the town’s higher mandated proportion. The state required towns seeking to require more than 10% do a feasibility study to see if a higher percentage was economically feasible for developers. The study showed that it was not, mainly due to the high interest rates and escalating construction costs — a situation not unique to Lincoln.
“There are lots of projects in Boston already permitted but not being built due to the economic climate. That’s a major problem with getting these multifamily projects off the ground,” said Paula Vaughn-MacKenzie, Director of Planning and Land Use.
Seeking a longer process
“Let’s slow it down, go at our pace, comply [with the HCA] but move very cautiously and do it in a deliberative and thoughtful manner that engages more people,” Sara Mattes said. “We’re fast-tracking for something that’s not due until December 2024,” when commuter rail towns like Lincoln must have new multifamily zoning in place.
“How we act will have a significant impact, both positive and negative, on the quality of life in Lincoln,” said Susan Hall Mygatt, who echoed others in asking for a “none of the above” option on December 2. “We’re trying to meet an aggressive timetable that’s well in advance of the timetable demanded by the state… we have the time to figure this out.”
“Going slow is not code for ‘not in my back yard’,” said Katherine McVety.
Others said that having rezoning the mall, having the Rural Land Foundation partner with a developer such as Civico to redevelop it, and then eventually leasing or selling it ceded too much control. “The mall does warrant redevelopment, but the way it’s been bundled with the HCA is not the way we should go about it,” said William Broughton.
Michele Barnes, chair of the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust/RLF Board of Trustees, argued that the RLF was aiming to continue fulfilling its preservation mission and has been propping up the mall for some time. “We’ve taken on debt and put our own endowment into the mall to keep the mall as vibrant as we can. Everything we’ve done at the mall and seek to do is for the ends of the town because our mission is to serve the town and to preserve Lincoln’s rural character,” she said.
David Hobson asked what would happen if the town missed the December 2024 deadline — “it might be worth taking that penalty if we retain control,” he said. But Vaughn-Mackenzie explained that the town would go to the back of the line or lose eligibility for MassWorks grants, which will be vital for rebuilding the water mains between Bedford Road and Route 117 — a project estimated to cost $2.75 million per mile.
“My preference is to have at least most of the housing potentially buildable,” as opposed to including The North Lincoln parcels in the multifamily district, said Ken Hurd. The Lincoln North property already contains a large office building. As for Battle Road Farm, even if rezoning allowed more multifamily housing there, nothing would actually be built because every condo owner would have to agree, as the common property is also owned by them. “That’s almost like saying we don’t want to supply housing,” he said. “I don’t think we need more choices if we’re going to stay somewhat in the spirit of the law.”
“The state intends this as a very long-range plan — they understand that some options may be more interesting to developers than others,” Glass said.
There were 2 meeting. I believe Terri is referring to the MA meeting, with 50 or so in attendance.
A comment in support of “none of the above” on the ballot also received loud applause.
The room was divided.
The evening meeting was attended by 208, at one time, and comments and majority sentiment at that meeting were clearly concerned or openly opposed to the current proposals on the table.
Tonight’s meeting saw another turn in the process..
I find the lead sentence in this article to be a misleading description of the meeting. I attended and I remain fully in support of the carefully thought out Option C. The statement by David Onigman on the history of exclusionary zoning and need for more housing at the meeting was followed by cheers from the audience, representing substantial support by attendees for the HCAWG options. The statement by Michele Barnes, was likewise followed by vigorous clapping.