The Lincoln Squirrel

News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

South Lincoln/HCA*

Peskin files public records requests on Article 3 Town Meeting process

Resident Barbara Peskin recently submitted three public records requests to the town in connection with the controversial March 23 Annual Town Meeting vote on Housing Choice Act rezoning.

Town administrator Tim Higgins received the requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law on April 5. Peskin confirmed that she had made the requests but declined further comment. Her specific requests seek emails, files, and communications regarding the March 20 Moderator’s meeting (see “Groups will get time to present positions” subheading) and Article 3 at the March 23 Town Meeting that were shared among town officials including Planning Board and Select Board members, Town Meeting Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden, Director of Planning and Land Use Paula Vaughn-MacKenzie, Assistant Director of Planning and Land Use Jennifer Curtin, Higgins, Assistant Town Administrator Dan Pereira, IT Director Michael Dolan, and “staff who support them.”

Peskin and a number of other residents were unhappy about how the zoning bylaw in the Housing Choice Act warrant article was presented and amended at Town Meeting. Questions were raised about who said what to whom and when regarding the amendment in the preceding days.

The public records law requires the town to provide its initial response within 10 business days. “When the scope of the request is extensive, the town responds with an estimate of the time and expense involved in searching and preparing its response,” Higgins said on April 23. “Once the fee is paid, the town undertakes the search and compiles its response. In the process, the town does review the records to determine whether any of the materials may be withheld or redacted pursuant to the exceptions that are spelled out in the statute. The requester is free to appeal the town’s decisions to the Supervisor of Public Records under 950 CMR 32.08 (1)(d). We are required to advise all requesters of their appeal rights when we send our response.”

Asked if he knew how much time and expense that meeting the process would involve, Higgins said on April 25, “We are in the process of working with the requester. Out of respect to the requester and the process, I would prefer not to comment on the request until the process is concluded.”

Perhaps not coincidentally, Vaughn-MacKenzie told Planning Board members on April 16 that they had to use their town-issued email addresses to discuss town government matters in the future. She also said that Town Counsel Joel Bard had advised that officials unsubscribe from LincolnTalk. However, it isn’t clear whether (1) officials must unsubscribe entirely (i.e., not be able to read posts to the listserv), or if they can post emails about non-town-related issues, and (2) if the recommendation applies to elected officials appointed officials, paid town employees, or all three.

On April 24, Higgins said he had spoken with Bard in an attempt to clarify what is permissible for board and committee members regarding listservs and social media, and that he would report on the issue at the Select Board meeting on April 29.

Planning Board discusses policies in wake of Town Meeting tumult

(Editor’s note: This article was updated on April 18 to correct the first paragraph about public comment at meetings.)

In the aftermath of the last-minute Housing Choice Act amendment and pre-Town Meeting debate over who was allowed to say what and when, the Planning Board this week started formulating policies to spell out public participation at its meetings as well as its own operations.

The discussion covered several topics including virtual meetings, public comment, agendas, how to treat split decisions by the board, and its procedures for presenting at Town Meeting. The board didn’t allow public comment at its in-person April 16 meeting where the draft policies were discussed, but it will take comment before it votes on them at a future meeting.

Public comment at meetings

For nonjudiciary issues — those having to do with general policy or zoning — members proposed following the Select Board’s policy of allowing a 15-minute public comment period at each meeting, with each speaker limited to two minutes. For issues regarding individual projects (site plan review, driveway curb cuts, etc.), the board will continue our current policy of allowing unlimited speaking time and prioritizing abutters.

Board chair Margaret Olson encouraged residents to send emails about issues of interest prior to the Thursday before each meeting so the issue can be put on the agenda if appropriate, and board members would then get copies of the emails as part of their pre-meeting packets. “You can write as much as you want in an email,” she said. “It’ll save you some aggravation from sitting and listening to us nattering on.”

Meeting agendas

In the flurry of discussions before the Annual Town Meeting on March 23, the board became aware that an amendment to the HCA bylaw (which eventually passed by a 52% to 48% margin) was probably going to be proposed. Director of Planning and Land Use Paul Vaughn-Mackenzie told the Housing Choice Act Working Group about this on the morning of March 14, and HCAWG members initially thought the Planning Board would discuss it at the meeting scheduled for March 19, but they did not.

“I wanted to talk about that amendment and was told we could not” because the public hearing had already taken place, Olson said this week. Board members wondered whether the previously posted agenda for the March 19 meeting could have been amended, and if so, how and when.

“If something like that comes up, we’ll need to call [Town Counsel] Joel [Bard],” Olson said. She added that he had also told her that having a standard agenda item such as “Other business” was not allowed under the state’s Open Meeting Law.

Split decisions

Another bone of contention was the Planning Board’s split decision in February on endorsing the HCA bylaw. At Town Meeting, Olson read aloud the dissenting letter written by board members Ephraim Flint and Lynn DeLisi, but neither of them was allowed to speak from the podium.

“I felt pretty much silenced in terms of my ability to express my thoughts on the floor of Town Meeting. I felt that I should have had the opportunity to explain what I did and why I did it,” Flint said this week. “I don’t believe having you read the letter was sufficient.”

When the Planning Board gives its report on an issue like the HCA at Town Meeting, “it’s a statement about our reasoning at the time we took the vote, which is why I read the letter,” Olson said.

Boards and committees are almost always unanimous in recommending approval of warrant articles they’re presenting, but it was unclear before and during Town Meeting how the board should represent both sides of the issue, “and I don’t pretend to know the answer to that,” Olson said. “It was very, very difficult… some people were telling me I should do this and others telling me it’s not your jurisdiction.” She and board member Gary Taylor noted that the School Committee, for example, has a policy that the majority decision becomes the stated position of the committee as a whole.

Town Moderator Sarah Canon Holden and Select Board member Jim Hutchinson will head at least one public forum to gather input on how Town Meeting procedures can be improved. Consequently, the Planning Board deferred further discussion of its own Town Meeting policies until after that happens. 

A related issue: when to allow speakers to present slides and speak from the podium as well as from the floor. “What about the RLF?” DeLisi asked, referring to the fact that the Rural Land Foundation was given these privileges when proposing its HCA amendment.

“I don’t even know what category that’s in, which is why we need to go through the town process,” Olson replied. “The town needs to figure out how it’s handling Town Meeting and then we can figure out how we fit into that.”

LincolnTalk

LincolnTalk, the email listserv for residents, exploded with comments, protests and questions about the HCA in the weeks before Town Meeting, and Olson tried to answer some of those questions in the same venue. But Vaughn-MacKenzie said this week that this is prohibited by the Open Meeting Law and that she and other town officials are no longer allowed to be subscribed members of LincolnTalk. She encouraged board members to use their official town email addresses when discussing town business or else copy all town-related correspondence from their personal to their town email accounts. Craig Nicholson and Olson are the only Planning Board members who have activated their town email accounts, she added.

Town resolved HCA issues soon after receiving letter from state

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:

  1. Did not include GIS data in the correct format
  2. Did not include street and rail right of way areas
  3. Showed some parcels that did not have sufficient frontage to meet the district’s minimum requirement,
  4. Needed wording to satisfy watershed protection rules without special permits or discretionary zoning approvals
  5. Incorrectly includes language suggesting that minimum parking can be required for non-residential uses
  6. 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.

Officials scrambled before Town Meeting as HCA amendment took shape

The Housing Choice Act rezoning measure passed by a thin margin last month — but not until after the last-minute introduction of an amendment (ultimately approved) that blindsided many at the March 23 Town Meeting. Town officials say there was not a coordinated behind-the-scenes plan to spring the amendment on residents. But their recollections reveal a rushed series of actions and decisions demonstrating that detailed procedures for Town Meeting should be clearly agreed on and publicized in advance — something the Select Board and Town Moderator have promised to do with public input this spring.

In the weeks leading up to Town Meeting, Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives spearheaded a push to vote “no for now” on Article 3. The group wanted more time to collaborate with officials on an alterative plan that would have reduced housing density in the mall subdistrict. Meanwhile, several residents, including but apparently not limited to Planning Board members Lynn DeLisi and Ephraim Flint (who had earlier voted against endorsing the plan), were preparing to submit an amendment on the floor of Town Meeting that aimed to achieve the same goal.

Michelle Barnes, chair of the board of the Rural Land Foundation, which owns the mall, was actually the one to propose the amendment — even though she and the RLF executive director Geoff McGean were taken by surprise  when they learned that an amendment of some sort was coming just nine days before Town Meeting. (Both are also members of the Housing Choice Act Working Group, which headed the process of writing new bylaw language.) DeLisi herself was also apparently surprised by Barnes’s move at Town Meeting.

The original draft approved by the Planning Board called for 20 units per acre in the mall subdistrict. The amendment passed at Town Meeting reduced that to 15 units per acre while also increasing the maximum density of the Lincoln Woods subdistrict from eight to 10 units per acre, and the Lincoln Road/Lewis Street subdistrict from 11 to 12. The amendment also struck language that would have given the Planning Board leeway under certain strict conditions to reduce the required percentage of commercial use at the mall from the required 33 percent.

Who knew what and when?

“There seems to be an effort to put a single timeline together that specifies when everyone decided on amendments and that everyone knew what everyone else was doing. This is not the case,” Director of Planning and Land Use Paula Vaughn-Mackenzie told the Lincoln Squirrel on March 26. “There were several people who were thinking about an amendment, not one initiative. There was not one timeline. It was different parties making their own decisions on their own timelines. Nonetheless, here is an incomplete sequence of events:

Sometime before March 14: Town officials learn that an amendment to the zoning bylaw was probably going to be proposed on the floor of Town Meeting. “I recall that I heard that there were several people thinking about an amendment,” Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden told the Squirrel on April 1. “I have no idea when I heard that the RLF had an amendment. It seems to me it was just one of many.”

Timing unclear: Planning Board Chair Margaret Olson asks Vaughn-Mackenzie to draft a 15 units/acre amendment and have planning consultant Utile to review it. Utile reportedly tells them that it would meet the state’s HCA guidelines.

“Margaret had mentioned at public meetings that she thought it would be a good idea to have a couple of possible options vetted with Utile before Town Meeting in case an amendment was made,” Vaughn-MacKenzie said on March 26.

“The amendments were prepared at my request because I had heard from some citizens that they were considering making a density amendment on the floor of Town Meeting. I did not want Utile (who was present at Town Meeting) to try to validate a density amendment on the fly,” Olson wrote on LincolnTalk on March 24. “The slide with the density chart was prepared so that Town Meeting could assess the changes. The RLF (and several others) asked for the text of the 15 units/acre amendment.”

March 14 (morning): Vaughn-Mackenzie tells the Housing Choice Act Working Group that an amendment is expected. The group initially assumes that the Planning Board will discuss it at its scheduled March 19 meeting, as McGean notes that not having any public input from the Planning Board “puts RLF in a really difficult position.” 

Vaughn-MacKenzie initially says that the board could have that discussion because its March 19 agenda had not yet been posted, although the town calendar web page indicates it was in fact posted on February 27. Later in the meeting, she acknowledges 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.

March 14 (evening): At the final HCAWG preview of Article 3, residents continue to express concern about housing density and commercial occupancy at the mall and float the idea of proposing an amendment at Town Meeting. Olson says that an amendment cannot change the boundaries of the subdistricts or add or subtract subdistricts or parcels or it risks not meeting state HCA guidelines.

“I think a lot of people would be pretty unhappy [if you reduced housing density at the mall] because of what you wind up having to do in other districts” to compensate, she says. “The numbers have to work but it’s not impossible.”

March 18: Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden says that opposing viewpoints or amendments must be made from the floor of Town Meeting without slides, saying that other parties such as “the RLF may speak if they’re responding to a question, but I don’t know that they’re going be up there on their own.”

March 19: The Planning Board does not mention the possibility of a mall-related amendment at its meeting. Agricultural Commission Chair Louise Bergeron advocates for changes to restrict lighting and impervious surfaces in the HCA district. The board is generally receptive but says they can’t set requirements for the HCA district that don’t also apply to the entire town, and they’ll tackle those issues separately after the HCA issue is behind them.

“We can take this up right after Town Meeting,” board member Gary Taylor says. “We’ll get someone working on this. Right now we don’t have anything to pass… I’m glad you brought this up.”

Ironically, the board does vote to endorse Article 28, which would requires residents with property in areas under consideration for rezoning to be individually notified by mail at least 14 days before the meeting at which that discussion is expected to begin. “For something this significant, we really should not be springing votes on people,” Olson said in that context.

March 20: Holden affirms that the LRHA and Article 3 proponents would each get 10 minutes from the floor to present their positions.

March 23: On behalf of the RLF, Barnes proposes the amendment at Town Meeting. DeLisi herself is apparently surprised by the move, saying she “had the same [type of amendment] in her purse” to offer if had Barnes not done so.

Holden allows Barnes to present her amendment from the podium and show slides created by the RLF.

“Slides at Town Meeting are not reviewed by the moderator or the IT team. We send [IT Director] Michael Dolan a file and he makes sure it is available on the laptop. Nothing about the content of slides is coordinated ahead of time,” Olson says on March 27. Vaughn-Mackenzie confirms on March 28 that “the town did not make slides for the RLF.”

“The RLF was allowed to speak from the podium with slides because it is the largest property owner affected by the zoning amendment,” Holden tells the Squirrel on April 1. “They have worked closely with town officials throughout the process to come up with a plan. The voters needed to hear directly about that plan. In addition, the viability of the town’s commercial center has been a prominent concern of town residents.”

March 25: In response to the March 25 story about the HCAWG’s March 14 meeting, DeLisi writes in the Lincoln Squirrel that “none of what is being reported here was shared with both Eph Flint and myself.” She also says that she and Flint had 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.”

On March 28, Vaughn-MacKenzie says, “The HCAWG meeting on March 14  was a public meeting which was properly noticed. No one — not Lynn, Eph, the RLF or anyone else who was thinking of bringing an amendment — needed to tell the Planning Board or each other what they were thinking of doing.”

March 27: “RLF and other parties, including Lynn DeLisi, who mentioned it on the floor of Town Meeting, requested the amendment language from the Planning Board,” McGean tells the Squirrel. “Without an advertised Planning Board public meeting, the RLF did not think it was correct to discuss with individual Planning Board members our possible intention. In the spirit of compromise, the RLF Board of Trustees decided to make the amendment on density at Town Meeting. In addition, we proposed to strike the special permit exception for the 33% commercial requirement. These two compromises were the result of significant public feedback we had received from some residents at RLF’s public forums, the numerous Planning Board meetings, and comments on LincolnTalk.”

My Turn: What happened at Town Meeting?

By Barbara Peskin

We expect our elected officials to be fair and the Town Meeting moderator to be impartial. Whether you were “No for Now” or “Heck Yeah” at the March 23 Town Meeting, make a note of the following (you can watch the recording of the meeting here):

  1. Two elected Planning Board members, a resident group (Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives or LRHA) supported by 311+ signatures, and a town board (the Agricultural Commission or AgCom), requested and were denied podium time or use of slides. The decision maker was the moderator. The Select Board supported the moderator’s decision.
  2. The issue of podium time was hotly discussed at the March 18 Select Board meeting (illuminating recording here). The Selects, Planning Board chair, moderator, and many members of the public engaged in two hours of discussion. Residents shared that the visual impact of slides is powerful.
  3. A moderator’s meeting was held on March 20. It was open to the public, in person only, not hybrid, and not recorded despite requests. Anyone who would speak from the podium was required to be present. The moderator assigned a minute by minute presentation run down, including who would speak from the podium, for how long and whether they could have slides. Article 3 would be presented by the Planning Board chair. The Rural Land Foundation (RLF) was not on the presenter list, nor did they speak at the moderator’s meeting. Representatives of LRHA and Heck Yeah groups were present and were allotted 10 minutes from floor mikes (no podium, no slides).
  4. The March 23 Town Meeting recording shows that when the chair of the board of the RLF rises from the audience and stands at the podium, the moderator does not appear surprised. This is contrary to the schedule outlined to the public at the March 20 moderator’s meeting, and to the public discussion at the March 18 Select Board meeting. The RLF is a private entity, with a financial interest in the outcome of the vote, yet the moderator watches the RLF chair walk up to the podium and say, “Good morning. [I am c]hair of the board of trustees for the Rural Land Foundation.” The RLF chair speaks for close to three minutes, supported by slides, uninterrupted by the moderator. She closes with “…the RLF would like to offer a compromise on the HCA. Madam Moderator, may I have permission to amend the proposed bylaw of Article 3?” The unsurprised response from the moderator: “Yes.” A slide of the RLF amendment is then placed on the screen and read.
  5. Next, the town counsel states the “printed version of the motion” he had been given was technically different from what was read, and corrects it for the record. Both the printed version and slide of the amendment had to have been submitted to town counsel and the technology coordinator prior to the start of Town Meeting, since the RLF chair did not hand either of them anything when she arrived at the podium.
  6. Next, the Planning Board chair, without asking for a turn, appears to be expected by the moderator as the scheduled speaker after the RLF. The Planning Board chair goes to the podium and says the amendment “is compliant. It has been vetted” [by Utile, the town’s consultant].
  7. After an HCAWG member, Planning Board Chair, Finance Committee member, Select Board member, a second HCAWG member, and then the RLF chair speak from the podium, the moderator calls for comments from the floor. The first mike comment comes from a “No for Now” supporter completely surprised by the amendment. The second person the moderator calls on is a “Heck Yeah” resident whose prepared statement supports and includes reference to details of the RLF amendment.

When you watch the recording of the Town Meeting, notice that the proponents associated the RLF’s Amendment with the word “compromise.” The proposed amendment was not a “compromise.” A compromise is defined as “an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions; an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both.”

A tactical surprise by one side is not a compromise. The LRHA residents, who were always open to compromise and discussion and who attended almost every Select Board and Planning Board meeting since the State of the Town in September, were not told about nor asked for input on the RLF amendment. The dissenting Planning Board members and the AgCom were also kept in the dark. This does not bring the town together in compromise. It exacerbates the town division. Just repeating the word compromise does not make it so.

Here is what the LRHA, AgCom, and No for Now residents hoped for: green space and tree protection, increased setbacks, and reducing density both at the mall and in the Lincoln Station area by finding another parcel in Lincoln to include for compliance. The compromise they sought demonstrated respect for the land and people that live and work in the rezoned area. There was time to come to true compromise.

The moderator gave the private RLF access to the podium yet denied it to elected officials and other residents requesting to balance information presented. Is that impartial?

The presentation of the amendment appeared to be tightly controlled and coordinated behind the scenes. The orchestrated amendment tactics worked in favor of the proponents. Article 3 passed by a slim margin: “Heck Yeah” at 52% to “No for Now” at 48%. These last-minute machinations may well have affected the outcome of this very close vote. The loss will be most palpable to the people who live and work in the rezoned area.

I have been a proud resident of Lincoln for 29 years. I am not proud of the way our town leaders pulled the strings to squeak out an affirmative vote on the HCA in March, when we had plenty of time remaining this year to respond to public feedback and reach a real “compromise.” We can do better, and going forward, we must do better.

“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.

My Turn: Postlethwait says thanks, lauds rezoning adjustments made before Town Meeting

By Sarah Postlethwait

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Gary Taylor on his victory. It was a huge turnout and you have a strong following! Thank you for the years of service you have given this town already and will continue to offer in the future.

I would also like to thank the nearly 700 of my neighbors, friends, and complete strangers who went out on a limb to vote for me. I am incredibly grateful for your support!

I know many of those people voted for me because they were also frustrated with the lack of community collaboration and transparency experienced in the past few months. I hope that Mr. Taylor will consider the voice of the 42% of residents who cast a vote in my favor and push for changes in the process going forward. Doing so will ensure 100% of the town wins.

I was moved by a group of seventh-graders who came over to speak to our crowd of sign holders Monday. Those children were very concerned about the Lincoln that may be awaiting them when they are adults, and they felt their voices were also unheard. I informed them of their ability to bring a citizen’s petition to town meeting on any topic that they felt passionate about, and had an idea of how to improve. They were intrigued and invigorated to learn that their voices could actually count. They could have a say in their future, too. I hope they feel compelled to actively participate in our town government, and I hope that is a theme we can see continuing in the adult population, as well. An active engaged community makes a better end product.

  • I am incredibly grateful for the work that hundreds of my fellow residents who are associated with the LRHA accomplished in the past seven months to help protect our town. Due to their keen observations and unwavering persistence, the HCA rezoning that passed on Saturday was a vastly different article than what it was intended to be in September. They have also greatly contributed to democracy in our town at the same time.
  • The total number of housing units that could be built was reduced from over 1,400 to 800. A 67% total housing increase within a half-mile radius would have been detrimental to our town.
  • The state changed its model used by all towns to take into account wetlands, and allow for less density around them — helping preserve Lincoln’s environment, but also the environment of countless other towns in our state.
  • They brought attention to the bylaw that allowed a developer to count any “street-activated use” as commercial — including lobbies, residential gyms, common spaces, and leasing offices — which could have been detrimental to retail business at the mall if left in the wrong hands.
  • They brought attention to the lack of affordable housing being required, and as a result, the Planning Department promised to resubmit a new feasibility study that can support 15% affordable housing. This will help save our limited affordable housing trust funds, so it can be used to create a more diverse affordable housing stock.
  • They helped shed light on the negative impact on our beloved businesses if a hundred housing units would have been allowed to be built on the mall, resulting in the amendment presented by the RLF at town meeting.
  • They brought attention to the lack of environmental protections in both the HCA and general zoning bylaws, which will hopefully result in protections for open undeveloped space and mature trees in the near future.
  • Their push for clickers at Town Meeting resulted in this article being brought to Town Meeting and approved. As a result, much smoother and shorter Town Meetings will hopefully be in our future, allowing even more residents the ability and desire to participate.
  • They made residents aware of buses that helped many citizens have access to town meeting. Hopefully the town will continue the bus service in the future due to the limited parking available at the school for town meeting.
  • They advocated for people with disabilities to be able to participate in town meetings remotely, resulting in a town policy change that will continue into the future.
  • They advocated for the Town Meeting process to be reevaluated, including having a written set of Town Meeting rules, a policy for relevant town boards to be permitted to speak from the podium, and a request for more balanced presentations that include any dissenting voices of the presenting board to have equal podium time. As a result, the Select Board has promised to establish a committee that will address these concerns and look into making Town Meeting more fair and balanced, giving residents real choices rather than asking for a rubber stamp of approval.

While our work is not done, I can’t but help feel grateful for all that we have accomplished, and I hope that all of our fellow residents feel the same. I especially hope that all residents, no matter their view or age, will feel motivated to continue being active and engaged citizens, positively contributing to our beautiful town.

Thank you again for your support, Lincoln.

“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.

My Turn: DeLisi’s version of HCA amendment events

By Lynn DeLisi

Editor’s note: DeLisi, a member of the Planning Board, originally posted the following as a comment on the March 25 Lincoln Squirrel story headlined “HCAWG, RLF were surprised by rumored amendment to zoning motion” and is being reprinted here with her permission.)

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, [board chair] Margaret Olson contacted me and suggested we do an amendment and told me that [Director of Planning and Land Use] Paula [Vaughn-Mackenzie] 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 16, but since I was to be out of town then, it was postponed to be discussed at the Tuesday, March 19 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 [Housing Choice Act 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 viewpoints 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 disbanded. 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 weak and divided vote. I call now for a real vote at the polls.

“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.

Contentious HCA rezoning measure squeaks by, 52%–48%

At one of the longest and most controversial Town Meetings in recent history, voters on March 23 narrowly approved the Housing Choice Act zoning amendments by a margin of 52% to 48%. The community center funding measure, which needed a two-thirds majority, was approved easily.

Knowing that the meeting would be heavily attended, town officials had plenty of extra volunteers on hand to check in residents starting at 8 a.m. for the 9:30 meeting, and to count standing votes. Both the Todd Auditorium/Lecture Hall and the Reed Gym were at full capacity, with even more people in the Learning Commons. Before the meeting could start, town counsel Joel Bard had to be escorted in by police after he got stuck in the traffic jam of cars trying to park on campus, and an unknown number of residents were reportedly turned away by police and advised to park at Town Hall or Donelan’s. Some braved the walk in heavy rain and others didn’t.

The rezoning issue, already the topic of hot debate for the last several months, started Saturday with a bombshell right off the bat when Michele Barnes of the Rural Land Foundation introduced an amendment from the floor that was intended to address concerns that housing density at the mall would be too high under the revised bylaw. Their proposed changes to the bylaw wording endorsed by the Planning Board on February 26 by a 3-2 vote:

  • Reduce the maximum housing density in the village center subdistrict that includes the mall from 25 units per acre to 15.
  • To compensate, increase the maximum density of the Lincoln Woods subdistrict from eight to 10 units per acre, and the Lincoln Road/Lewis Street subdistrict from 11 to 12.
  • Strike the section (12.9.2.3.a.10) that would allow the Planning Board to reduce the required percentage of commercial use at the mall from 33 percent by special permit if that ratio were shown to be incompatible with “economic and market conditions.”

The amendment thus made “33 percent commercial” an inviolable minimum unless residents approve a further change in zoning language at a future Town Meeting.

The proposal was first discussed publicly at a Housing Choice Act Working Group on the morning of March 14. At that meeting, Director of Planning and Land Use Paula Vaughn-MacKenzie told the group that Ephraim Flint and Lynn DeLisi, the Planning Board members who cast the two “nay” votes on February 26, were planning to introduce the amendment on the floor of Town Meeting.

“In anticipation of a possible amendment,” planning consultant Utile was asked to “develop two alternatives” that would meet the state’s HCA requirements, and the bylaw with Saturday’s amendment passed muster, Planning Board Chair Margaret Olson said.

Many unhappy with last-minute amendment

“This is just off-the-charts bizarre,” said Bob Domnitz. “In the 15 years I was on the Planning Board, we always recommended that zoning not be created on the floor of Town Meeting.” The changes should have been incorporated before the February 20 public hearing, he added, “and I think it’s further evidence that the main motion and amendment are not ready for this town.”

“There’s no way I can really understand and vote intelligently and with full knowledge of what this means,” another resident said.

Although the amendment was reportedly devised by DeLisi and Flint, they did not present a united front in the discussion. “I’m very happy to see that Michelle brought this forth,” said DeLisi. “I love this amendment — I think it’s a great compromise.” Flint was less sanguine. “What I’ve heard this morning is for the most part a very positive step forward… but I agree with Bob that we are not going to get this right on the floor of the meeting,” he said.

The amendment “is not a major change” for the Lincoln Woods and Lincoln Road subdistricts and it “addresses people’s greatest concerns” about commercial space at the mall, said Jonathan Soo, a leader of a citizens’ group pushing for passage. “We can’t delay the healing that this town desperately needs,” he said. 

“Settling the matter now is far preferable to another nine months of arguing about what to do,” agreed Alex Chatfield.

Desire for closure prevails

On Saturday, voters approved the amendment by a vote of 603-216 (74% to 26%), clearing the required two-thirds majority. But more impassioned discussion of the main motion followed.

Speakers protested that the HCAWG did not include any members who live in the subdistricts targeted for rezoning (although the group was appointed before any specific parcels had been identified), and that Flint and DeLisi were denied permission on March 20 by Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden to speak from the podium and use slides. Olson did, however, read the letter that the pair submitted to their fellow Planning Board members on February 26.

“The process has not provided a fair and balanced view of this controversial topic,” Sherry Haydock said. “Voting no is a chance for all voices to be heard… with equal representation and inclusivity,” she said to loud cheering.

But others said that defeating the measure vote would do far more harm than good. Referring to an earlier comment that the town is in crisis and needs “family therapy,” HCAWG member Terri Perlmutter said, “the notion that as a family we’ll come together where everyone suddenly agrees is naive. Family therapy takes years and mayne 50 percent of the time it’s successful. I would remind people to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

“There’s no way to know if that process would be less divisive or more divisive, or produce a compromise with more support or less support,” Soo said. Town officials, staff, and volunteers have borne the brunt of the battle, he added, “and they won’t say it publicly, but I will — they have been treated absolutely horribly. We cannot go forward and subject them and the rest of the town to another nine months of this on the mere wish that we might be able to come up with something better. Voting no would have a real cost to our town… and that makes me worry much more for Lincoln’s future than any zoning law.”

HCAWG, RLF were surprised by rumored amendment to zoning motion

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.

My Turn: On the fairness or unfairness of the procedures at Town Meeting

By Edward Young

Although the moderator said that none of the controversial procedures followed at [Saturday’s] Town Meeting should be considered as precedents, they raise questions that should be addressed when the town considers Town Meeting procedures comprehensively later this year, if not sooner. Here is how the moderator regulated who spoke, when and where.

Prior to the meeting, the moderator had announced that a group of over 300 residents — who had petitioned for time for a spokesperson to speak from the podium, with slides, in opposition to voting now on the announced resolution regarding a draft HCA bylaw nine months before the deadline for HCA compliance — would instead speak for ten minutes from microphones in the auditorium, without slides, and that a spokesperson for another group of residents who favored voting on the resolution now would be allowed to speak in the same manner. Presumably, only town officials and members of town advisory committees, all of whom favored immediate adoption of the resolution, would be allowed to speak from the podium or present slides.

Two members of the Planning Board who had voted against the draft bylaw in its current form also asked to be able to speak from the podium, as their three fellow Planning Board members who had voted in favor were allowed to do without time limit. This was denied, and they were restricted to getting in line for two minutes each at the microphone. Instead of allowing the two members to say themselves whatever they wanted to say from the podium, in their own tone of voice and in the fresh context of whatever was being said at the meeting, another Planning Board member chose to read aloud, in their own tone of voice, a public statement that the two members had made some weeks before.

Neither group of residents, nor the two Planning Board members, has any financial stake in the outcome of the HCA vote.

However, before either group was allowed to speak, the Rural Land Foundation — which is not a part of town government, and which has a financial stake of millions of dollars in the outcome of the HCA vote — was allowed to speak from the podium, with slides. This came as a complete surprise to the voters in the auditorium.

By being recognized first, the RLF was enabled to move a detailed amendment to the HCA resolution that precluded discussion of the main motion for quite some time. The RLF flashed on the screen a series of highly complicated charts that were not handed out before the meeting and which voters had not had a chance to review.

After the amendment had been discussed and voted on, the two groups of residents were finally allowed to speak on the (amended) main motion. The opponents of the motion were called on first and the proponents had the chance to rebut what they said. It would be interesting to know if that order of speaking was decided by coin flip or other neutral method.

The two Planning Board members were patient enough to eventually make it through the microphone line for two minute comments.

That’s how discussion was handled at Town Meeting.

So I submit that a robust examination of the fairness or unfairness of what just happened at Town Meeting is very much in order. I wonder if anyone would care to provide reasons in justification for it?

“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.