(Editor’s note: the headline to this story was amended on November 30. See this clarification for details.)
Utile, the town’s planning consultant for Housing Choice Act rezoning, said this week that Option E would not pass muster with the state because it does not meet the law’s requirements.
With Utile’s help over the last eight months, the Housing Choice Act Working Group came up with four options for Lincoln to comply (Options C, D1, D2, and D3), all of which include the mall. But Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA) argued against including the mall and proposed Option E, which they say gives the town more control over the mall’s future by excluding it from HCA rezoning while also minimizing new housing in the village area and its resulting congestion. Option E will join HCAWG’s four on the ballot at Saturday’s Special Town Meeting.
The HCA requires towns including Lincoln to allow 635 units of multifamily housing over at least 42 total acres, which can be broken into portions or subdistricts under certain conditions. One of those conditions, according to the state’s Section 3A guidelines (Chapter 5, Section a, Part ii), is that “no portion of the district that is less than 5 contiguous acres [of] land will count toward the minimum size requirement.”
“In the professional opinion of our consultant, E does not appear to be compliant because the south Lewis Street subdistrict is smaller than 5 acres and is not contiguous with the rest of the Lincoln Road subdistrict,” Select Board member Jennifer Glass wrote in LincolnTalk on the afternoon of Wednesday, Nov. 29. That verbiage is also on the HCAWG website.
Option E straddles the south side of the railroad tracks but does not include the parcels between the track and Lewis Street. Lincoln Road (though no actual parcels of land) connects the two pieces.
Also on Wednesday, HCAWG also posted updated maps and tables for its four options, which are slightly different from previous versions. “There are changes in the unit/acre calculations because our consultant, Utile, worked with the state to refine calculations when there are significant wetlands involved,” the group wrote. “The allowed units/acre will be written into the zoning bylaws and is a maximum, regardless of the size of the units.”
The new slide deck also includes maps showing the likelihood of housing development in each subdistrict based on its current status. Option E has the largest amount acreage of allowed multifamily housing in parts of town other than the village area and thus the lowest amount that is likely to be developed.
LRHA meeting draws more than 170
The LRHA held a heavily attended Zoom meeting (video here) on Wednesday evening to review all five options, make the case for option E, and answer questions, which viewers could post using Zoom’s chat function (though not verbally). The typed questions were visible to the meeting hosts but not the audience, and the hosts acknowledged that they couldn’t get to all of them in the 90-minute session. Utile’s analysis of option E from earlier in the day did not come up.
After the meeting, the LRHA wrote on LincolnTalk that they are “are parceling out the remaining questions to the presenters best equipped to answer them. We’ll post those questions and answers as soon as we can collate them.”
One of the questions that came up again at the session was why the town was putting the HCA options to a vote now when the state deadline for enactment isn’t until December 2024. “If the state sees we’re working in good faith on a solution, I’m sure the roof doesn’t cave in on Jan. 1, 2025,” said Bob Domnitz, a former member of HCAWG and the Planning Board.
Town officials have said they’ll need the extra time in case the March 2024 vote doesn’t result in a bylaw acceptable to the state, which has not given any indication either way about whether it might be flexible about the deadline.
Option E going forward
Utile’s opinion notwithstanding, Option E will still be on the ballot on December 2, and whatever option voters choose that day will also be submitted for a compliance check. However, if they vote for option E and the state rejects that plan after review early next year, it will not be on the warrant in March. In that case, “the working group and the Planning Board would have to go back through a public process again” to fix the problems to bring the option into compliance, Glass said at the November 27 Select Board meeting.
Town officials have already submitted Option C to the state for a compliance check, though they don’t expect a state reply much before the final vote at Town Meeting in March.
Officials have also said that if Option E prevails, the town will offer a separate article at the Annual Town Meeting in March asking voters to rezone the mall to allow a mixed use of commercial and multifamily housing.
Town Administrator Tim Higgins noted at the November 27 Select Board meeting that the commuter lot, even though it’s part of the town’s HCA rezoning, cannot be sold or leased for development without Town Meeting approval because it is town-owned land. He also reiterated that recent executive sessions of the Select Board concerning a piece of property are not about the commuter lot and that “there is no specific proposal in the works that’s currently under negotiation.”
Savanna Brewer says
Option E is not only fairly compliant (slight adjustments at most as with most initial proposition’s), it also received the most preliminary votes by a large margin. It being removed from the ballot needs to be looked into, preferably by a law firm and not a “consultant.” This is a weird representation of Democracy. Removing options and also having marathon long meetings seems like a clear move to wait out those opposed to certain options. Most people cannot sit for over 3 hours in a town meeting, especially those with kids. And the majority of those people are for Option E. Someone call Walmart. I hear they’d love to build something in town too.
Sarah says
This article has such a misleading title and there are many misrepresentations in the text, as well.
I also question why poll results that showed E as the clear frontrunner are hidden behind a paywall- after asking non subscribers to take the poll.
For those who can not see the results due to this paywall:
E 63.22%
C 23.37%
D3 4.6%
D1 2.3%
Frank O Clark says
Option E was created by Lincoln townsfolk. Option E maintains Lincoln Town Meeting Control of the “mall” by the Lincoln train station. It is fully compliant with state HCA requirements, having been created with the model (a simple spreadsheet that all can understand) supplied by the state and designed for this very purpose.
Please everyone read the facts and details. If you are unsure, vote for Option E, which was created by Lincoln Townspeople and is the safest, most inclusive option that retains maximum Town Meeting control!
Lynne Smith says
Alice, I hope you will correct this article. The title misrepresents the small, easily fixed discrepancy in Option E. The option is viable and can be made compliant. The rest of your article is slanted and misrepresents the excellent work of the LRHA group. You have written your opinion as if it were straight reporting.
delisi76 says
It seems to me that option E can be easily fixed to be made compliant and the most important aspect of it is that it allows the Town to discuss carefully what should be by right for the Mall area and could require more affordable housing there. Remember that this first set of zoning changes is to comply with the HCA. We can always work on other zoning changes later that would bring in more affordable housing to Lincoln and have the opportunity to discuss them more carefully.
Scott Clary says
Dear Editor,
I find this article to be tilted. Perhaps reaching out to LRHA for their input would have been prudent.
This group/David Cuetos discovered the flaw in the state model and is the reason the state modified their model. And hence, the reason for today’s changes in the HGAWG’S C and D options. This discovery and alteration to the state model will aid many towns who are taking a slower, more wait and see approach. And clearly wisely so, as things keep changing.
While LRHA believes the 5 acre/ contiguity reasoning behind Utiles opinion that option E will not comply is not accurate, the group has offered HCAWG multiple times to make easy tweaks to the sub District if need be.
Sara Mattes says
Apparently the author of this article missed the updated email from Select Glass. All options, if found non-compliant, will be adjusted to be so. In fact, on the urging of David Cuetos, Utile worked with the state to adjust the model and the application submitted by the HCAWG. As stated by Select Hutchinson, all models could and would be adjusted to ensure compliance, after Saturday. Proponents of Option E, at a recent meeting offered to make a simple adjustment if there was any “hiccup,” and it was indicated that the proponents would be notified of any issues in order to make an adjustment ahead of Sat. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Those following meetings closely, and following exchanges in the course of these meetings would be aware of these communications.
Finally, Option C was only produced in Aug-Sept., and introduced publicly at the end of Sept., State of the Town. Options D1,D2,D3 came much later, after citizens, 200 strong weighed in on a Zoom forum. So, Utile and the HCAWG have been working on the options to be presented for 4 months, not 8, and the public has been able to digest Option C for 2 months, and Options D1,2 &3 for even less time…hardly a lengthy public eduction and debate timeline for major zoning changes that will, which ever option is chosen, change our landscape forever.
Karla Gravis says
This is not a fair representation. While I do not agree with Utile’s assessment (let’s remember Utile also submitted Option C with an extra 18 acres of land to the State), it is an easy fix to address their concern. This seems to suggest that Option E is dramatically non-compliant, which is not true.
Option C as submitted to the State has multiple corrections that need to be made: 18 acres of additional land, LW zoned at 20 acres instead of 8, as well as the multiple changes made today to the other units/acre measurements.
The changes made by HCAWG to options C-D today are not minor. The units per acre for every single district (except the Village Center) have gone down. Must be noted that it was the LHRA’s identification of the State model’s flaws that made this possible.