My Turn

We the undersigned Lincoln voters have carefully reviewed the options for compliance with the Massachusetts Housing Choice Act at the Special Town Meeting on Saturday, Dec. 2. We plan to support Option C for the following reasons:

• Option C, in which all the rezoning takes place near the train station and in the area surrounding the mall, provides the best and most likely opportunity to create a vibrant, welcoming center for this town.  
• We have confidence in the Rural Land Foundation to live up to its mission to acquire, protect, and steward conservation land in Lincoln as it has done conscientiously since its formation in 1965.

Option C is preferable to Option E because:

• Option E does not include the mall in its rezoning plan. We believe improvements in the mall will not happen in the near future if we delay the process for future Town Meeting approvals.
• Option E designates 54.3% of new units at Battle Road Farm, a disingenuous plan since approval of new housing is unlikely to take place. Battle Road Farm has a cumbersome and complicated process in which 100% of condominium owners must approve a requested change. In terms of approval for new housing, Battle Road Farm is a non-starter.
• We believe that affordable housing can be achieved in other ways in the rezoned areas. We are content, for now, to agree to 10% affordable housing in the mall area.  
• We believe that Option C offers the most environmentally sound approach to joining efforts to address greater Boston’s housing needs and strengthen the use of the commuter rail, while also maintaining our commitment to conscientious stewardship of our environment.

Therefore, we support C, which will:

• Strengthen Lincoln’s commercial area, creating a vibrant center for the town.
• Provide a timely and honest response to the housing crisis in greater Boston.
• Enable Lincoln to work toward an optimal housing affordability ratio.
• Adhere to our values of cherishing our environment while supporting the human needs of our larger community.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

By Benjamin Shiller

After spending a lot of time thinking about the various options for the Housing Choice Act, I have become very concerned about potential consequences of having too much growth too quickly. I thought the most concentrated housing option, Option C, might be manageable at the stated increase in units — 454, or about a 20% increase in Lincoln (excluding Hanscom) housing units. However, digging deeper, I learned that the increase could be much higher than stated, raising serious concerns about unintended consequences. The reason for the severe underestimate is the inclusion of properties with substantial wetlands and town-owned lands. The state compliance model heavily discounts such properties, excessively so, raising the concern that the actual number of additional units may be more than twice as high.

I have created this video, explaining this in more detail, which I hope you might consider viewing. 

There are plenty of ways to do more than our part to alleviate the local housing shortage without jeopardizing our town. We could try to choose parcels more selectively to avoid a surprise. For example, we could choose parcels that are privately owned and which do not contain wetlands. 

There really doesn’t seem to be any rationale for including public lands, as they do not count at all towards compliance. For example, it has been claimed that the DPW needs to be included for contiguity, because the road counts as public lands rather than “public ways” which are to be exempted from contiguity. However, even if you think roads on municipal land do not count as “public ways,” which seems contrary to how Massachusetts defines a public way, one could change it to a municipal road with the stroke of a pen, then drop the DPW from Option C.  

Ryan Estate poses a bigger issue, but one that can be solved with a little creative thinking. Ryan Estate is probably needed for contiguity for options where the majority of the acres surround the mall. However, Ryan Estate could be assigned to its own subdistrict with much lower density, eliminating the risk of surprises. Option E does this.

I close with a question. Proponents of Option C have repeatedly claimed that development would take place slowly over time. If that is the case, then what is the harm of selecting a less risky option, like Option E, along with the mall redevelopment, which together would increase housing units (yes, new housing) across Lincoln by about 15%? This would already be a very large change especially since it is all concentrated in one area. We could do that, then see if substantial rapid development causes any issues. If it does not, then we could do additional rezoning to increase housing units further, and avoid the HCA limitation of 10% affordable units. I have difficulty seeing why all of our housing expansion has to occur right now under the Housing Choice Act.

Benjamin Shiller is a member of Lincoln Residents for Alternative Housing.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

By the Rural Land Foundation Board of Directors

As the December 2 Town Meeting approaches, we thought it would be helpful to briefly remind you of who we are, why we think our preliminary proposal to redevelop the mall with by-right mixed-use zoning is in the best interest of Lincoln, and our current thinking of the HCA options.

The RLF and its mission

The Rural Land Foundation (RLF) is a nonprofit land conservation organization whose central mission, along with our sister organization the Lincoln Land Conservation Trust (LLCT), is to help protect the rural character of Lincoln. The RLF board, made up of 17 Lincoln residents and its three Lincoln resident staff members, all care deeply about this town.

While our primary goal is to help the town conserve land through acquisition, creative planning, and limited development, we also own and operate the mall for the benefit of Lincoln residents. Proceeds from operating the mall fund our land conservation activities in Lincoln. Through the years, RLF’s creative model has helped us work with the town to conserve more than 2,500 acres of land and create over 80 miles of interconnected trails. Whether it is protecting most of the 100+acre Wheeler Farm back in the early 1960s with a limited development model, or more recently, conserving much of the Wang property and providing an opportunity for the town to create a much-needed athletic field, our goals and commitment are to help the town meet its needs and preserve its rural character.

RLF’s preferred option

At the December 2 Special Town Meeting, the town is asking Lincoln residents to vote on a preferred zoning warrant article that meets the requirements of the Housing Choice Act (HCA). Four of the zoning options (C, D1, D2, and D3) allow the town to take credit for the mall rezoning towards the total number of units the state requires for Lincoln to comply with the HCA. We think all four of these particular options make sense for the town to take credit for housing units zoned at the mall. It is our belief that Option C creates the best opportunity to:

• Create new multifamily housing near public transportation
• Provide economically diverse housing options and create affordable housing that may actually be built
• Help the mall’s valued tenants in an otherwise struggling retail environment
• Minimize climate change impacts

We see this as an exciting opportunity to work with town residents and officials to revitalize our small commercial area and create a sustainable and vibrant town center. For any potential redevelopment that is considered at the mall, we are committed to help the town ensure a commercial-based town center for the long term.

Why by-right zoning is best for redeveloping the mall

We are asking for the by-right mixed-use zoning for the mall vs. the Town Meeting process because we believe it:

• Provides the most financial flexibility
• Creates site planning clarity for RLF and a future developer
• Allows the mall to be on the same competitive playing field for developers as other HCA by-right zoned areas within Lincoln and surrounding towns
• Is more likely to attract essential outside capital for much-needed reinvestment in the mall
• Still preserves our commercial center and is more likely to create a vibrant and sustainable town center

Public process

RLF is fully committed to a public process that, in addition to Planning Board site plan review, includes numerous feedback sessions with town residents and many other opportunities to let us know what you like and what you don’t like. Our last redevelopment project at the mall in the early 2000s, where we saved the post office and Donelan’s from leaving, involved a process that included Town Meeting and nearly seven years of listening and public feedback, much of which we tried to incorporate. The uncertainty, cost, and length of that process almost resulted in the project not coming to fruition.

We know many residents are very concerned about the future of the commercial center and we appreciate that interest. The RLF board and staff have worked hard over the years to maintain a commercial center for Lincoln and we hope to ensure a vibrant and sustainable center for the future. It is our belief that a well-thought-out “Lincoln-scale” redevelopment project will help our valued tenants at the mall continue to thrive. However, ultimately, Lincoln residents control the future of our commercial center by either shopping there and using the services or not.

Trust and support

As we have done for decades with our conservation projects, we are respectfully asking you for your trust and support. RLF has a track record across decades of being a thoughtful steward for the town. We are asking the citizens of Lincoln to trust our organization to do what’s best for the community at the mall, consistent with our nonprofit mission, and we seek more flexibility in achieving these goals. We want to continue to partner with the town to improve its socioeconomic diversity while maintaining its rural character, thriving agriculture and open space for enjoyment by all.

P.S. We know that there have been a lot of specific questions about the project and RLF. We will continue to try to answer those questions through the FAQs on our website and the HCAWG website.

RLF board members are Michelle Barnes (chair), Susan Allen (vice chair), Kenneth Bassett, William G. Constable, Daniel England, Andy Falender, Andrew Gnazzo (vice treasurer), James Henderson, Weston Howland III, Diana Jong, Gwyneth Loud, Robert Mason, Ellen Meadors (treasurer), Paul Shorb, Nancy Soulette (secretary), Andrew Stevenson, and Susan Welsh.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

By the Mothers Out Front Lincoln leadership team

Lincoln’s Mothers Out Front leadership team enthusiastically endorses HCA Option C.

We believe that transit-friendly housing is a climate solution. By increasing housing density near public transportation and within the town center, Lincoln will be part of the solution to both the regional housing crisis and climate. In Lincoln and statewide, we feel that housing, climate, quality of life, diversity, inclusion, and a thriving economy are all critically important community issues.

We therefore support enacting zoning changes that comply with both the law and spirit of the MBTA Communities Act. We vigorously encourage construction of additional housing at the mall and near Lincoln’s train station. Option C is the only plan that does not increase density near or in the expanding Hanscom airport and Lincoln’s one environmental justice community.

We encourage the town to continue advancing a broad program of climate mitigation, environmental justice, and resilience strategies through our 2023 Climate Action Plan, including sustainable building practices, ecological landscaping around new development, and minimizing carbon emissions.

We extend our sincere appreciation to our Select Board, the Housing Choice Act Working Group, town staff, and all who have worked towards developing these zoning options.

We wholeheartedly hope you will join us on Saturday and Vote for Option C.

Lincoln’s Mothers Out Front leadership team members are Emily Haslett, Staci Montori, Rachel Neurath, Trish O’Hagan, and Candace Pearson.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

By Peter Braun

In the interest of enhancing rational discussion about the proposed rezoning options, I am repeating and elaborating on the gist of a comment I posted a couple of days ago in the Lincoln Squirrel in response to Ruth Ann Hendrickson’s article.

This is not just an Option C vs. Option E debate. The Working Group and Select Board have wisely offered us some potential alternatives, which I view as potential compromise solutions. As a lawyer, I was always interested in potential compromises, so I appreciate their having offered some more choices than just Option C or bust.

Options D-1, D-2, and D-3 all offer the same benefit as Option C in terms of rezoning the mall and rezoning some other parcels in South Lincoln. In fact, they could have been labeled C-1, C-2, and C-3. And they all include large amounts of areas that are understood to be highly unlikely to be developed (Lincoln Woods and Ryan Estate). Those unlikely-to-be-developed areas, as well as the unlikely-to-be-developed areas in North Lincoln included in several options, are, to my mind, just benign puzzle pieces to satisfy the state’s 42-acre requirement.

Rather than be distracted by these benign puzzle pieces, I have tried to focus on where the real action is, in South Lincoln. That’s where the public transit is. That’s where our commercial area is. That’s where we have pointed to for many years as the area for some sort of “walkable village.” That’s where the Working Group has appropriately focused.

In trying to sort out which of these four “C-related” options are preferable, the question for me is how much South Lincoln development besides the mall itself are we willing to enable by right, now and forever. I am totally in favor of by-right rezoning for the mall itself, and I trust their judgment. That will entail a large addition of housing and much-needed revamping of the mall’s commercial and public spaces. How much more by-right development in South Lincoln do we want, and how likely is it to occur?

Jennifer Glass’s excellent presentation materials at this week’s Mothers Out Front meeting very well articulated what our choices are in terms of what areas could be developed in reality, depending on what the property owners and potential developers decide to do. As I understand what was presented, in the case of D-3, our choice is the mall plus the properties across the street (essentially between Ridge Road and the Ryan Estates, going several blocks in from the road), with a maximum collective potential of 262 new housing units. For D-1 or D-2, focusing only on their South Lincoln aspects, it’s the mall plus the properties across the street and the properties within the Lincoln Road/Codman Road/Lewis Street/railroad tracks rectangle, with a maximum collective potential of 383 new units. For Option C, it’s the mall plus the properties across the street, the properties within the aforementioned rectangle, and the properties further along Codman Road down to 117, with a maximum collective potential of 480 new units. The tale of the numbers: 480 vs. 383 vs. 262.

There are many factors that would drive whether and how much of these areas other than the mall (which has its own development trajectory) will actually be redeveloped for multi-family housing. Among these factors are assembling (buying) enough contiguous parcels, septic infrastructure, wetlands, and parking (which, in my mind, could realistically necessitate designing for one or possibly two cars per housing unit). As others have mentioned, all of these factors and their cost would be balanced by potential developers against the multiple other opportunities that are sure to arise in other communities as the impact of the HCA takes hold. In the meantime, in the absence of an effective crystal ball, all we have to go on are the maximum developable units articulated by Jennifer.

My personal opinion is that D-3 offers us a big chunk of what many want — redevelop the mall and open the door to nearby by-right multi-family housing (across the street) — and offers what some, like me, may want, which is a chance to see what happens if as many as 262 new housing units and the inevitable car-usage are added to that area, before we enable even more within the aforementioned rectangle and along Codman. Others may have a different risk tolerances and/or may anticipate that the amount of development enabled by Option C or one of the other Ds will be significantly less than the maximums.

Reasonable people can debate the merits of all options. But, again, we do have multiple options. My two cents, in hopes of stimulating rational dialogue.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

By Ken Hurd

At one of the recent forums hosted by the HCAWG (Housing Choice Act Working Group), one particularly insightful resident posed a poignant question to the proponents of an alternative Option E. She asked, “What is it you stand for?”

Although there was no immediate response, we now know the answer, according to the mailing most residents recently received about a meeting planned by proponents of Option E. You can find it on the back of the flyer under the label “Our Guiding Principles,” and I would like to highlight what I see as some inconsistencies.

Create more affordable housing

Many proponents of an alternative Option E express concern that the HCA limits the percentage of affordable housing to 10%. Because Lincoln normally requires 15% affordable units in any multi-family development, the delta of their concern is 5%. In Lincoln’s case, the HCA requires zoning that will allow 635 units, and 5% of that would be 32 units. As a reminder, the HCAWG responded early on to the residents of the Ridge Court Condominium property, a.k.a. the “flying nun” apartments. Despite the fact that this property is one of the most logical to include in the rezoning, they asked to be excluded in order to preserve the 36 units of relatively affordable apartments that already exist. The HCAWG agreed, and the delta of this exclusion represents more than the 5% about which the alternative proponents are so concerned.

Protect commercial retail in our village center

To anyone who has paid any attention to the state of retail services in Lincoln Station over the last ten years, they might have noticed a decline or turnover in establishments and an increase in vacancies. This is occurring not just at the mall but in the entire Lincoln Station area. As noted in the 2010 Comprehensive Long Range Plan, “the town needs to be receptive to more housing near the train station,” and as was predicted in 2010, “small businesses currently operating around the train station may find it very difficult to survive in the future unless the area includes more housing and, ironically, more businesses.” Absent more housing, existing retail will most likely continue to wither away.

Safeguard Lincoln’s wetlands protection bylaw

As noted multiple times by the HCAWG, all underlying regulations required by the bylaws of Lincoln will continue in effect, and that includes all wetland protections currently in place.  

Focus on locations with existing infrastructure while minimizing the need for greenfield construction

If this means rezoning Battle Road Farm, it would appear that this is no more than a tactic to subvert the intent of the Housing Choice Act since condominium regulations make it nearly impossible to create new housing in that location.

Preserve historically significant properties

A worthy goal, but with the few significant properties that exist in the Lincoln Station area, this could most likely be accommodated by any of the options with a minor adjustment.

Honor the legacy of past generations’s work to create a variety of housing choices and multi-family housing

Most Lincolnites, particularly those who know the town’s history, will agree with this statement. Time and again, previous generations have stepped up to do more than Lincoln’s fair share in preserving open space while also increasing our housing stock to accommodate a variety of needs. In my opinion, it would be a slap in their ancestral faces to shirk our responsibility to the region by raising the drawbridge and rezoning for the least amount of new housing possible while claiming compliance.

Save our key in-town parcels from HCA’s 90% market-rate zoning mandate, allowing funds from Lincoln’s limited Affordable Housing Trust to be more wisely spent for much-needed low- and moderate-income housing units in Lincoln

To me, there is no correlation between saving in-town parcels and using AHT funds for needed housing. This “principle” advocates for nothing more than kicking the can down the road toward inaction. 

Finally, I think we can all agree that the Housing Choice Act is forcing our hand no less than in many of the surrounding communities. I hope that we can rise to meet this challenge as past Lincoln residents have done so many times before. There is no question in my mind that we can be as creative as our forbears and find solutions that will maintain the town’s character that we all cherish. I sincerely believe that this will be best achieved by voting for Option C.  

So please, join me in supporting Option C as the best way to revive the Lincoln Station area as well as to meet our responsibility to the region by creating more actual housing consistent with our town vision statement, namely:

“Fostering economic, racial, ethnic, and age diversity among its citizenry through its educational, housing and other public policy.”

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

By Jonathan Soo

All Lincoln residents should feel threatened by how Option E supporters changed the rules so that they could force a plan developed in secret by an unaccountable private group onto the December 2 Town Meeting ballot and making what should have been an unofficial survey into a binding vote* for the plan that will be presented at the March 2024 Town Meeting.

In 2022, after the MBTA Communities Act was signed into law, the town created a detailed plan describing how it would develop a zoning bylaw. The town committed to having a town working group create a new zoning bylaw, followed by public hearings leading up to the March 2024 Town Meeting.

The town’s Housing Choice Act Working Group (HCAWG) collectively spent hundreds of hours evaluating and developing a number of options, gathering feedback from affected residents in a series of information sessions, and carefully ensuring that the proposed options meet not only the state’s requirements but also federal Fair Housing Act requirements, Lincoln’s Comprehensive Long Range Plan, and other obligations. 

This fall, a small group of people opposed to additional housing in the town center decided that rather than making their case in March, they would hijack the process by developing their own plan using every loophole available to make sure no new housing could be built there. This plan was developed in secret by a small group of self-selected insiders, with no minutes or records of who participated or even when meetings were held.

On November 14, the Select Board voted to change the rules of the game. It asked HCAWG to rubber-stamp Option E so that it could be added to the ballot without review, and announced that the informal survey at the December 2 Town Meeting would be changed into a binding vote to select the option to be placed on the March ballot, effectively adding a primary vote to the process with two weeks’ notice — with one of those two weeks being the Thanksgiving holiday.

Even if Option E was developed in a legitimate way, changing the December 2 vote from a survey to a binding vote is an incredibly unfair change to the process. It is simply not possible for town residents to digest and evaluate all of the options in just a few days, especially since one of the options has only been publicly known for a single week. Too many residents will be entering the meeting with no real understanding of the implications of voting for each choice, to be swayed by a few minutes of rhetoric before the vote.

On top of this, many residents will be unable to rearrange their schedules at short notice to attend the meeting, assuming they hear about the changes at all. Most residents interested in the process still have a postcard on their refrigerators describing the December 2 meeting as “‘Sense of the Town’ from residents via an informal paper ballot on preferred option – C or D.”

Of course, Option E was not developed in a legitimate way — not in any way that should be acceptable for the town to place on a binding ballot. By placing it on the ballot and stating that it is a viable choice for the March 3 vote, the Selects are saying that the town stands behind it morally, ethically, and legally. No zoning law developed in secret should be allowed on any town ballot.

Every Lincoln resident, no matter which of the town’s options they support (C, D1, D2, or D3), should go to Town Meeting and vote against Option E as long as it has not been rejected. 

* Editor’s note: Although the vote is binding, changes may still be made to bring the measure into compliance with state law if necessary — see the HCAWG website (Q&A #4 under “2023 11 22 FAQs).”

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.