Alongside the controversy about how and when the HCA zoning amendment was composed and introduced, some residents on LincolnTalk have raised a hue and cry about a January document saying that the Lincoln’s proposed bylaw would not be compliant with the HCA, and that residents were not informed of this before the March 23 Town Meeting vote. But Director of Planning and Land Use Paula Vaughn-Mackenzie said this week that the town had made the necessary changes in time.
The letter from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) dated January 12, 2024 was in reply to the town’s pre-adoption review application submitted on October 17, 2023. Governments of MBTA communities are required to submit that draft before residents vote on their HCA bylaw at Town Meeting.
“The EOHLC has determined that the Application as submitted does not demonstrate that the 3A District will meet the requirements of Section 3A and the Guidelines if it is adopted,” the letter says. Specifically, they said, Lincoln’s draft:
- Did not include GIS data in the correct format
- Did not include street and rail right of way areas
- Showed some parcels that did not have sufficient frontage to meet the district’s minimum requirement,
- Needed wording to satisfy watershed protection rules without special permits or discretionary zoning approvals
- Incorrectly includes language suggesting that minimum parking can be required for non-residential uses
- Included an Economic Feasibility Analysis requiring that 15% of housing units be affordable, rather than the HCA’s maximum 10%. “EOHLC has not yet reviewed the Economic Feasibility Analysis, but can do so at your request, should the town want to include a requirement for more than 10% of units to be affordable.”
On April 1, Vaughn-Mackenzie told the Lincoln Squirrel that “all iterations of the zoning bylaw and changes were sent to the Planning Board and discussed in meetings” and that the issues in the letter were resolved in a Zoom meeting with the OEHLC on January 18 that included consultant Utile and town counsel. Specifically, she said:
- Items 1 and 2 were resolved by Utile. Nothing changed as a result of these two items.
- Item 3 was resolved by submitting a screenshot to Lincoln’s GIS map to show a private right of way that did not show up on the state’s GIS map. Item 3 was resolved with town counsel.
- The town’s Aquifer Protection & Watershed Protection Overlay districts require a special permit process although special permits are not allowed in HCA districts, so the language in the HCA bylaw was changed to “permit” instead of “special permit.” “This was acceptable to EOHLC and Lincoln’s town counsel because it is consistent with HCA and protects the town because an applicant must comply with all requirements contained in Lincoln’s bylaw,” Vaughn-Mackenzie said.
- Since the town can’t require commercial parking in the Village Center District, “the language was softened and the [wording] ‘the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed parking is sufficient to meet the needs of the development’ was removed. The Planning Board can still review parking under site plan review. EOHLC said this change was acceptable.”
- Regarding minimum affordability, “the town is committed to submitting a revised study to see if we can obtain EOHLC’s approval for 15% affordability.”
Changes to the bylaw language regarding items 4 and 5 were made prior to the Planning Board public hearing and were included in that draft,” Vaughn-Mackenzie said, adding that she had received no other feedback in writing from EOHLC other than the January 12 letter.
Karla Gravis says
Why was the letter and the response never shared during a public and open Planning Board or HCAWG meeting? We (the public) only heard about this letter recently (over two months after the letter was received and these non-public meetings with the EOHLC happened).
Sara Mattes says
Perhaps this can be confirmed with minutes and time dates on recorded meetings.
Joan Kimball says
Is there any way this important article could be sent to Lincoln Talk to counteract some of the accusations against town officials?
Sara Mattes says
The headline may be misleading. The article has yet to be verified with documentation. It appears that the article does not include verification with links to recordings of any public discussions.
This is a key issue and what others have called for.
In fact, the claim of lack of documentation that EOHCL had not responded appears to be shown here to be correct and the sequence of the off- line crafting of the amendment remains an outstanding concern.