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.
This reads as masterful storytelling, trying to create a narrative to fit the reality.
There is no good reason to not allow the citizen group into the “negotiations” before the town meeting. Such poor leadership allowed the town to be split, with bad feelings and accusations flying.
A good leader in such circumstances would have drawn the circle larger (hmm, kindergarten anyone?) to allow all the citizens to have a seat at the table, or even a few minutes at the podium. Small minded at best, unscrupulous at worst, leaving many to distrust the process and the people behind it.
No one from South Lincoln was notified about the proposed discussions re zoning or is on the any of the planning committees as I reported at Town Meeting . Two of the five planning Board who dissented, Lynn Delisi and Ephraim Flint were NOT PERMITTED to speak at the Podium. Margaret Olson from the other side of this issue read their statements instead. Unheard of. This is not Democracy – at all. It really sounds like something else. You decide what.
The very narrow vote is indicative of the lack of trust in Lincoln Town Government .
The state is now rethinking its request for housing that may be a burden and unnecessary in certain cases . Wouldn’t ‘t this be ironic if we , in Lincoln, are one of those?
We are already doing much more than the state has asked : putting more housing in the one half mile radius of the train, threatening retail, creating heat islands by cutting the green canopy in South LIncoln , bending to developers who have no skin in this game other than profit. Why? Why the rush? Who stands to profit ? The nimby group ? Just curious ..
I echo Planning Board member , Lynne Delisi “I now call for a real vote at the polls” .
By the way, Vote for Sarah Postlewait, for Planning Board who lives in South Lincoln.
Although some wish there had been more process, discussion, etc., it seems clear that a majority of those present at Town Meeting thought they had enough clarity about the substance of the amendment to feel comfortable voting for it and for the amended motion.
None of what is being reported here was shared with both Eph Flint and myself. IN FACT, let me set this straight: After Eph and I made it very clear that the Planning Board needed more time to address the many outstanding issues residents have raised, Margaret Olson contacted me and SUGGESTED we do an amendment and told me Paula would help me. She further added that we could discuss it as a Board and maybe then present a unified Board to the Town meeting instead of Eph and I supporting a “no” vote.
The next day, I contacted Paula–she convinced me not to go below 15 units per acre in the Mall and had Utile approve the numbers I had. She asked me to get Eph’s approval, which I did. Margaret then called a special Planning Board Meeting for last Saturday March 16th, but since I was to be out of Town then, it was postponed to be discussed at the Tuesday March 19th Planning Board meeting. However, Eph and I never understood why it was taken off of the Agenda and we were not aware that Paula had mentioned it at a Working group meeting.
We both talked to many other Town Residents in the few days before Town Meeting and decided that an amendment was not the way to go–even though it was a step in the right direction and relieved some of the density we feared at the Mall. The reason is that there were many other issues NOT YET DISCUSSED AND STILL NOT and there has been no consensus yet in Town about how to do this right. NOR, most importantly, have the current residents of the Lincoln Station area been consulted about their views for the rezoning in some cases of their own properties. We wanted MORE TIME to reach a true compromise in a democratic way. We wanted representatives of different view points to sit at the same table with the Planning Board to discuss what is most important and how to zone for it.
The reporting of the Working Group meeting by Alice Waugh-is a good illustration of why that working group needs to be dispanded. Their discussion was never reported to us as Planning Board members and should have been.
I am extremely dismayed by the events of the last few weeks in our beloved Town and hope our leadership, can find a way to obtain a consensus among all of us for the sake of future generations of residents of Lincoln.
I am also outraged that Eph and I were treated as “Black Sheep” and not allowed to present our wishes for the Town at the Podium.
I have been a member of the Planning Board for a decade and have never seen such an awful set of circumstances such as these develop–ultimately leading to a very week and divided vote. I call now for a real vote at the polls.
I read the RLF’s presentation and the Planning Board’s speedy endorsement of this subpar amendment as a cleverly orchestrated move on the part of both groups. The RLF executive director leapt to the podium with a very confusing slide (Slide? When do amendment-makers get slides and podium time, with endorsements?), rattled off some density count changes, did not address other glaring flaws in the rezoning bylaws, and then got an endorsement from a Yes resident (who apparently had seen the slide and heard the amendment before it was offered — information shared with no one in the opposition group, though both groups were accorded the “same” statement time and conditions). Expedience won the day.
Despite the Planning Board’s responsibility to craft bylaws that protect the character of our town, as expressed in its built form, the Board crafted the HCA bylaw to fulfill every wish of the RLF, regardless of consequence to either the town’s character or sense of community. The new bylaws transgress the Town’s own standing bylaws — has the Planning Board actually read those bylaws? — in more than one instance. As far as I can see — and I have worked on mall development and housing development in other communities, so I’m speaking now, as I have through the planning process, from experience — the new bylaws were shaped to maximize revenues for our favorite private non-profit. That was the Planning Board’s greatest consideration. The interests of the Town of Lincoln, and South Lincoln especially, played second fiddle to the RLF.
It’s difficult not to see the HCA public process as a cynical marketing effort by the RLF, Planning Board, and HCAWG to push through that RLF-favoring agenda. Saturday’s amendment performance and 52-48 vote cements my belief. This process has left us with an extremely poorly crafted set of HCA zoning bylaws, the fantasy of a really green Mall housing complex, the right of developers to warp South Lincoln’s public streetscape into something absolutely uncharacteristic of our town, widespread distrust of our town officials and even some paid staff — and a deeply polarized community. It’s a terrible legacy.
Bad, disruptive practice from start to finish.
Citizens- the legislative body- had no opportunity to review and asses downstream effects of the amendment.
It was as if subcommittees and staff prepared something for a Congressional vote, with no forewarning for the voting members.
This was the culmination ( and fitting metaphor) for how this most consequential bylaw has advance.
A complex bylaw – a generational legacy- introduced in Sept 2023 and voted on March 2024.
The legacy we leave is not only the landscape and built environment, it is how we treat each other and how we govern.
This is what our grandchildren and theirs will inherit.
This is not a story of a healthy democracy, respectful of its citizens.