Lincoln’s four Housing Choice Act subdistricts.
The Housing Choice Act Working Group first learned on the morning of March 14 that an amendment to the rezoning motion would be proposed on the floor of Town Meeting to reduce the density of allowed housing at the mall. Group members at that morning meeting (which the Lincoln Squirrel did not attend but watched the recording on March 24) were clearly surprised and not altogether pleased by the news.
Paula Vaughn-MacKenzie told the group that Planning Board members Lynn DeLisi and Ephraim Flint, who had already voted against endorsing the rezoning measure on February 26, planned to offer the amendment. While anyone (including a member of the Planning Board) is free to propose an amendment on the floor of Town Meeting, “I personally feel it’s really inappropriate, because people attended that [February 20] public hearing knowing that that was the official moment for the Planning Board to go forward. It seems very problematic now to undermine that public process,” Andrew Glass said.
“Nobody’s really going to understand what they’re approving or not approving,” Terri Perlmutter said.
“The RLF [Rural Land Foundation, which owns the mall] hasn’t had a chance to think this through and see how much it would affect their interests at the mall,” said Gary Taylor, who sits on both HCAWG and the Planning Board. “Somebody’s certainly going to ask what the RLF thinks about the modification… It just troubles me that we would, out of the public process, change the proposal that’s been out there for a long time.
HCAWG members initially thought that the full board — which had already written, edited, and voted on the measure — would be able to discuss the matter at its upcoming meeting on March 19. Given its 3-2 vote on February 26, “is the Planning Board going to say they’re not in favor of this?” HCAWG member Terri Perlmutter said.
“I think we will be asked to endorse it,” Taylor said.
But later in the meeting, Glass said, “I certainly come down thinking the Planning Board should not be re-voting anything.”
Vaughn-MacKenzie initially said the Planning Board would discuss the amendment at its March 19 and that the agenda for that meeting had not yet been posted, although the town calendar web page indicates it was in fact posted on February 27. She later acknowledged the concerns about whether the board should discuss it before Town Meeting and said she would convey HCAWG’s recommendation that it not do so.
RLF caught in a bind
It quickly became clear that the RLF would be forced to support the amendment, even without the backing of the Planning Board. “In my opinion, it’s whether the RLF is willing to do this for unity or not. This is all on us — this is no one else,” said HCAWG member Geoff McGean, the organization’s executive director. “I think it would be strange for the RLF to have one opinion and the working group to have another.”
However, not having any public input from the Planning Board “puts RLF in a really difficult position,” McGean added. “It’ll just create chaos on the floor of Town Meeting… it would be helpful to know if the board supports this amendment or not.”
It’s unclear exactly when the amendment went from being Flint and DeLisi’s proposal to the RLF’s. Planning Board Chair Margaret Olson said in an email to the Lincoln Squirrel on March 24 that she heard on March 22 from “multiple parties, including the RLF, that they would be making an amendment… I wasn’t clear on what exactly they were contemplating, which is why I asked Paula to prepare [motion text for] both 15 units per acre and 20 units per acre at the mall… I did not want Utile (who was present at Town Meeting) to try to validate a density amendment on the fly.”
Olson also said that she’d heard from several people on both sides of the Article 3 issue that “for the board to be making substantive changes to the proposed bylaw a few days before Town Meeting was not good practice.” While all this was going on, she was also helping resident Barbara Peskin revise the wording for Article 28, which called for a policy that requires 14 days’ notice on proposed zoning density changes.
“Not only was the short notice on a density change an issue, but our direction from the Special Town Meeting in December was Option C, not a modified Option C. Much as I would have liked to unite the board behind a modified bylaw, I reluctantly concluded that Barbara and others were right — we should not do it,” Olson said.
Later on March 14, HCAWG held its final public forum on the proposed bylaw printed in the Town Meeting warrant, but the Flynn-DeLisi amendment was not mentioned. No agenda was posted for that event because “we don’t publish agendas for the forums. The purpose is to answer as many questions about the bylaw as possible,” HCAWG’s Jennifer Glass said the previous day in answer to a query from the Squirrel.