The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

South Lincoln/HCA*

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.

A few more things to know about Town Meeting

Water Department seeks $2.2 million in bonding

At Annual Town Meeting on March 23, the Water Department is hoping to begin a multiyear process of replacing an aging and leaky town water main by asking for $2.2 million in bonding to fund the first segment.

Article 26 on page 22 of the Motions list outlines four capital spending requests from the department that will need a total of $2.4 million in borrowing. The department and the Water Commission have commissioned a study of which of five segments of the main running beneath Lincoln Road from Bedford Road to Codman Road should be replaced first.

The entire project is estimated to cost at least $10 million over several years. “This is not the first ask,” commission member Steve Gladstone said on Wednesday.

The project will require a “moderate” water rate hike for four to five years, he added. This will be the first time since 2020 that rates will go up. In April of that year, usage rates went up by 28% and the quarterly base charge rose from $35 to $50.

The Water Department’s capital budget in fiscal 2024 was $315,000 and $142,500 in fiscal 2023. The fiscal 2025 projected operating budget is $2.02 million. In the former year, the department received $1.45 million from the ARPA program that granted federal aid to respond to the public health and economic impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. That money paid for a replacement well on Tower Road and several other projects without the need for a customer rate hike. 

Groups will get time to present positions

Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden said on March 20 that she will grant the request from a group of 300+ residents who asked for 10 minutes to present the perspective of the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA) when Article 3 (the Housing Choice Act rezoning) is discussed.

Proponents of Article 3’s passage will also get 10 minutes of speaking time from the floor if they request it, Holden said. This is in addition to the Planning Board presentation by chair Margaret Olson. 

Dozens of residents at the March 19 Select Board meeting asked that a representative get podium time and the ability to show slides, but Cannon demurred.

Two other members of the Planning Board, Ephraim Flint and Lynn DeLisi, voted against endorsing the measure in Feburary, and Flint afterwards had asked for speaking time as well. However, since Olson “will be giving public voice to the minority report, it’s not really necessary for you to repeat your reasons from the podium,” Holden told Flint on Wednesday.

The full text of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment can be found here.

Planning Board endorses Article 28

The Planning Board has endorsed a citizen’s petition that would require the town to notify individual property owners when their property is part of an area being considered for rezoning. 

If Article 28 is approved at Town Meeting on March 23, town boards and committees must notify by mail property owners, residents (including renters) and abutters in the area of rezoning 14 days prior to their first public meeting at which the zoning change would be discussed. Similar notice would also be sent for any future meeting at which the decision on rezoning may be made as well as any Town Meeting where a vote on rezoning would be conducted. See details on page 23 of the Motions list.

Article sponsor Barbara Peskin said many people whose properties were marked for possible rezoning weren’t aware of it going into the State of the Town Meeting in September 2023, which offered three options to residents for feedback. “When informed in advance, people can become engaged and included in the process early and invested in the result,” she said.

Though there were some concerns among board members about how to define “first” discussions, Olson said at their March 19 meeting that she agreed with the idea. “For something this significant, we really should not be springing votes on people,” she said. 

If the measure is approved, the board will meet with Peskin and others to work out specifics of how the requirement will be implemented. 

Rides for seniors

The Council on Aging & Human Services is offering rides to Town Meeting for Lincolnites age 60 and over. Capacity is limited; book now by calling 782-259-8811.

Anonymous mailbox flyer argues against Housing Choice Act

Ratcheting up the tension even further, one or more people left unsigned anti-Housing Choice Act flyers in mailboxes around town on the night of Tuesday, March 19, stirring disgust and police complaints by some of the recipients.

“It got to the point that multiple people were calling,” said Acting Police Chief Sean Kennedy. He cited calls from residents on Codman Road and Wheeler Road, “but in talking with the dispatcher, it sounded like it was all over town.”

The anonymous flyer left in the mailbox of several Lincoln residents. Click image to enlarge.The flyer lays out arguments for voting against the HCA rezoning measure, but contains a number of factual errors:

  • It says the state is requiring affected towns to put in “many low income” housing units, when in fact the law does not have any such requirement and in fact limits the portion of affordable housing in HCA districts to 10%.
  • It says that Lincoln has never applied for a state grant other than for the school, when in fact it has applied for and received several grants in recent years, including regional planning grants and $400,000 for designing expansion of the Lincoln Woods wastewater treatment plant.
  • It incorrectly states that “we are looking at 800 units” and assumes those units will be filled with families of at least three people all at the same time, leading to a “sudden massive 50% increase in the town’s population” and a $30.8 million budget deficit for the town.

The flyer also implies that illegal immigrants could occupy some of the new housing.

One of the flyer recipients said other residents had sent him copies of a different flyer expressing similar anti-HCA sentiments that was left in mailboxes, though it’s unclear if the two versions were produced and distributed by different people.

After word spread about the incident, several residents — including several who oppose Lincoln’s HCA measure that will be voted on at Town Meeting on March 23 — decried the act on LincolnTalk.

Kennedy said he would speak with Lincoln’s postmaster, since leaving non-U.S. mail in people’s mailboxes is technically illegal, though there is no law or bylaw specifically forbidding it. He added that police had identified a person of interest who was seen putting papers in mailboxes on Wheeler Road. “We’re following up with a party to let them know that the postmaster doesn’t want them doing that,” he said.

My Turn: Vote no on the “bluntest instrument” for HCA compliance

By Randy Harrison

I am planning to vote no (for now) on Option C. Here’s why.

The Housing Choice Act (HCA) has given us a unique generational challenge and opportunity. At this point in the process, I’m hearing lots of winner-take-all, us-versus-them sentiments coming from all sides: “If you vote yes, you don’t care about Lincoln’s love of the environment and history of stewardship of the land” and “If you vote no, you are anti-development, anti-transit, and anti-diversity,” etc. Having lived in town for 30 years, raised our son, and gotten to know so many wonderful folks here, I’m hard-pressed to believe that either assumption is correct.

I originally thought that Option C might be the best solution, but with the information now at hand, the clarity I have personally sought has been elusive. Option C now appears to me to be the bluntest instrument to meet our HCA obligation. Even the Planning Board is split on this issue, which indicates that we still have work to do.

No matter what the outcome, don’t we and the generations that follow deserve to know that we have done everything we can to find a solution that embraces and unites the best of our community? This is where my “No (for now)” vote comes from and why I will be voting for Sarah Postlethwait for Planning Board.

“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.

LRHA proponents ask for podium time at Town Meeting

(Editor’s note: The verb in the headline was changed on March 20 from “demanded” at the request of an LRHA proponent.)

The heated controversy over the Housing Choice Act took another turn when more than 300 residents asked the Select Board and other town officials to allow a representative opponent of the measure to speak from the podium at Saturday’s Town Meeting “to present the perspective of the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (LRHA).”

More than 50 residents also attended the March 18 meeting of the Select Board, which turned the matter over to Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden.

Other residents in favor of Article 3 have also requested speaking time, she said. Her decision: each group may choose one speaker to represent them who may have five minutes to make their case from the floor microphones before other residents speak (longer than the usual two-minute speaking limit), but without the ability to show slides. The groups must identify their speaker at the in-person moderator’s meeting on Wednesday, March 20 at 7 p.m. at Town Hall. 

Holden also ruled that the representative speakers would not be allowed to answer questions from the floor after their speaking time was finished, in the interest of “keeping the line moving,” since heavy attendance is expected.

“I think this is actually giving a lot in terms of our transitions and how we run things,” Holden said. “There are lots of things that have changed [about Town Meeting in recent years] but we have to be very careful how we change things” in terms of setting a precedent.

But many of the 48 residents in person and on Zoom at the March 18 meeting strenuously objected to her decisions. “As long as you stick within your time limit, what is the downside of allowing slides?” Bob Domnitz asked. Sara Mattes also asked why the moderator’s meeting couldn’t also be shown on Zoom with viewer participation disabled.

Faced with the protests, Holden left open the possibility that she would amend her rulings. “I’m not going to answer you on the spot. I’m going to think about it,” she replied to Domnitz. “It’s not wise for me to just tell you something off the cuff.”

Residents challenge Holden

Another resident asked if the March 20 moderator’s meeting — which is intended for logistical planning for presenters, not a discussion of any actual issues — would be available on Zoom, but Holden demurred. “The meeting will go more smoothly” with only the participants speaking; otherwise, “there will be so many people I can’t really run it, and that’s always the way it’s been done.”

Mattes also said that at previous Town Meetings, groups in addition to the presenting board, such as the Rural Land Foundation, have been allowed to speak from the podium, as happened at the contentious 2012 Town Meeting about the first failed school project.

“The RLF may speak if they’re responding to a question but I don’t know that they’re going to be up there on their own,” Holden said. “The group that spoke at the school meeting didn’t set any precedent.”

“Why not? It happened,” Mattes shot back.

“I’d be happy to talk to you in private,” Holden responded, eliciting some dry chuckles from attendees.

“Are people afraid to hear the other side?” said Lynne Smith, who helped circulate the petition asking for podium time. “Visual stuff stays with people; it allows them to really see and understand something… I’m begging you to reconsider.”

The town’s presentation is “going to be very ‘pro’,” said Sarah Postlethwait, who is challenging incumbent Gary Taylor in the March 25 election for a seat on the Planning Board. “There are plenty of things wrong with the [proposed] bylaw and we need to hear both sides.”

But not everyone agreed with letting the LRHA present its case. “I look to the people on the podium… who have done the work and thought it through, and that what they’re presenting to me will be truthful and factual,” Tricia O’Hagan said. “They have more gravitas, and as an audience I feel like they’ve been vetted by the town.”

Issue evokes strong feelings among hundreds

The HCA issue has stirred more passion in town than any other issue since the 2012 school vote, if not before. Roadsides are peppered with a variety of signs urging residents to vote “No for Now” or “Heck Yeah!” and LincolnTalk has been inundated with emails on the topic. Two content-heavy websites have also sprung up — the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives (which has rebranded itself as “Lincoln HCA Info” on its home page) and HCA-yes.org, which was created by Jonathan Soo, one of the those who circulated an earlier letter urging passage of Article 3.

Town Meeting structure will be the subject of at least one public forum led by Holden and Select Board Chair Jim Hutchinson later this spring. Whatever new procedure is followed will be “a sort of trial or test,” Hutchinson said. Some other towns have very specific bylaws about the ATM process while others are more general, “and Lincoln falls into that latter category,” Holden said.

Town Administrator Tim Higgins agreed that having written Town Meeting policies “would eliminate some of the tensions we’ve been having… but making a decision to change the Town Meeting process so close to Town Meeting is really not a good practice.”

Laurie Gray, who advocated Option E before the December Special Town Meeting and helped circulate the latest petition, reiterated the LRHA’s request for more podium time, slides, and Q&A from the audience, and warned about consequences if the demands weren’t met.

“If people feel they weren’t heard, it’s going to last a long time,” she said. “I’m really worried that five minutes isn’t enough. I don’t know what’s going to happen. It’s going to be upsetting. We’re going to lose Lincoln.”

My Turn: Vote “yes” on HCA zoning and “no” on community center

By Ken Hurd

With apologies to all those who have worked to bring a new community center to Lincoln, I once again feel compelled to voice my strongly held opinion as an architect concerned with what we build in Lincoln, and I want to remind everyone why I and so many others believe we should not build a community center on the school campus. I still believe the Council on Aging component should be located in Lincoln Station and let the LEAP and the Recreation Department be located at the school.  

First and foremost, I believe that a $25 million investment by the town should be deployed where it would have the greatest positive impact — namely in the Lincoln Station area. For nearly 14 years since Town Meeting approved the Comprehensive Long-Range Plan, in which the revitalization of Lincoln Station was overwhelmingly one of the highest priorities, the area has lain dormant and in serious need of a catalyst to jumpstart its transformation into the compact, vital, walkable village center that was a stated goal at the time. Unless Lincoln is proactive in embracing change, the area will continue to decline.

Equally important, I believe that many of the decisions and commitments that led to the current community center proposal were well-intended but somewhat myopic, and to make matters worse, they now predate the new realities of post-pandemic life in the 21st century. Chief among these is our increased awareness of the effects of climate change as warmer winters, hotter summers, and earlier springs dominate our lived experience, suggesting that anything we can do to minimize our dependence on the automobile should be a very high priority.

I also never bought into the idea that mixing octogenarian driving skills with children on a playing field was anything but an accident waiting to happen. And in the new age of the AR-15, I would remind everyone that school shooting incidents in the U.S. have skyrocketed since 2015. In 2023 alone, there were 198 shooting incidents at K-12 schools, six of which involved active shooters. Of course, everyone believes it won’t happen here, just as everyone believed it wouldn’t happen when and where the shootings did occur. Why we would even consider locating an adult facility on a school campus in such an era of random and unpredictable violence is beyond me.

From a planning standpoint, the economic disruption caused by the pandemic combined with the dramatic increase in wealth inequality over the last decade has put increased pressure on the need for more housing in the region. For economic reasons, many seniors who might want to downsize are somewhat locked into staying in their larger homes until there are reasonable housing alternatives from which to choose. Thanks to the HCA, we are bound to see at least some increase in housing in the Lincoln Station area, and most professional planners I know would consider this a golden opportunity to locate the COA in the middle of such a potential concentration of housing. Doing so would not only create a symbiotic relationship among the multiple uses desired, but also between the primary users and the facility should the right mix and size of units be offered.  

Lastly, we learned at the recent informational session on March 7 that the current proposed zoning regulations for the HCA overlay district contain no language that would prohibit such a use. We also learned that the RLF has never been asked by the town if they would be amenable to incorporating the needed COA spaces into any development they do.

Frankly, if the COA component of the community center were incorporated in the RLF’s plan for redevelopment, it would represent a plus to any potential developer’s pro forma — namely, to have a confirmed tenant for an active community use in a purposely designed ground-level space. This strategy would minimize the cost to Lincoln in upfront financing for design and construction, and it would replace public project inefficiencies with professional development expertise. Doing so may make the new community center facility far more affordable to the town’s already stressed taxpayers. 

So, my hope is that voters will vote YES for Article 3 and vote NO on Article 4.That way, I believe it opens a door for the RLF and the town to work together on an overall masterplan that addresses many of these larger issues in a much more holistic fashion, ultimately helping to transform Lincoln Station to its full potential as a truly vital, walkable village center. Remember, we humans shape our environments at a moment in time, and then they shape us for decades to come.

“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: “No for now” will lead to “yes together”

By Lynne Smith

Many people in town are aware of the emotions around the Housing Choice Act proposed zoning amendment. These emotions are a testament to the fierce love we have for Lincoln. We cherish its past, appreciate its current beauty, and imagine a rejuvenating future that builds on our values. People on both sides of the issue share these feelings but disagree over the path.

We all want to:

  1. Comply with the HCA
  2. Add new multifamily units at lower prices than existing housing
  3. Protect retail business and parking at the mall
  4. Minimize environmental impact and preserve green space
  5. Continue Lincoln’s practice of 15%+ affordable housing
  6. Recognize Lincoln’s past success in developing 800 multifamily units (40% of our existing housing)

I believe we all want to be thoughtful and thorough about this momentous decision.

One of the main issues that deserves further discussion is this: A yes vote at Town Meeting would permit 100 units of housing* to be built at the Lincoln Mall. The Rural Land Foundation, owner of the mall, has shown a preliminary plan with 40 units, but has stated that allowing only 40 units is “not economically viable.” Where would the additional 60 units be built? Unfortunately, due to the finite space available at the mall, the likely outcome would be the replacement of retail space with housing units — the demise of Lincoln’s retail center.

We are fortunate to have Lincoln resident Ben Shiller, an economics professor, engaged with this issue. He has created a video that explains the problems with large-scale development of the mall and you can watch it here.

Ben Shiller is part of a data-driven grassroots organization that has been analyzing the HCA rezoning since last September. This group has coalesced as the Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives, LRHA, which corrected flaws in the initial zoning proposed by the Planning Board. LRHA has put together an informative website that describes and illustrates HCA issues. You can review it here before making a final decision.

I’m voting no for now to get to yes together! We should pause before taking the irreversible step of voting yes on Article 3 at Town Meeting on March 23. It will pass if only a simple majority of voters who attend the Town Meeting in person vote in favor. This could leave much of the town deeply dissatisfied with the result as well as with the process for the development of the proposed zoning, which was rushed through ahead of the legally permitted timeline without adequate time for public input to be received and incorporated.

Lincoln has until December 2024 to submit the HCA proposal. With a nine-month runway, a collaborative working group could craft a proposal that would pass with a substantial majority. An ideal plan would allow representatives from the LRHA and from a working group appointed by the Select Board to sit down together, analyze the data, iron out differences, and create a better choice with more public input. Much work has already been done and residents are more informed. A direct dialog with reasonable people on both sides could quickly lead to a consensus. I believe this group could arrive at a first draft by the end of May, revise and share it with residents over the summer months, and then present it in September, well before the state mandated deadline of December 31, 2024.

Members of the Planning Board and the Select Board have said we have time to get this right:

Jim Hutchinson, Select Board (March 7, 2024)

“If you like Option C, you should be comfortable voting for it, but if you don’t like it and want us to go in a different direction, we’ll get everyone back to the table and come up with a compromise to consider before year end.” 

Ephraim Flint and Lynn DeLisi, Planning Board (March 6, 2024):

“…we need more time to bring people together to discuss a compromise solution that most residents of town can agree on. This too could be done by forming a new subcommittee of the Planning Board to help obtain consensus between opposing views.”

Please join me in making sure that we take the necessary time to unite our town and to get the HCA Right. Vote “no for now.”

*Current proposal zones the mall’s four acres at 25 units per acre.

“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: Meet your Article 3 neighbors before you vote

By Barbara Peskin

(Editor’s note: this article was revised on March 19 to add words that were missing at the end of several sentences.)

Whether you are a No for Now, Heck Yeah, or Undecided for the pivotal rezoning vote on March 23 at Town Meeting, I hope you will make the effort to understand the implications of your vote by taking a walk around the 38 properties which would be rezoned under the proposed HCA zoning amendment, properties which include 190 residential homes. These properties are listed below. On your walk, note that each of these properties would be rezoned at a density of 8-25 units per acre.

Codman Road District properties (proposed new density: 10 units/acre):

  • Single-family: 168 Lincoln Rd, 34 Lewis St, 72 Codman Rd, 78 Codman Rd, 84 Codman Rd, 86 Codman Rd, 90 Codman Rd, 94 Codman Rd, 98 Codman Rd 104, Codman Rd, 108 Codman Rd.
  • Town-owned or business: DPW (30 Lewis St).

Lincoln Road/Lewis Street District properties (proposed new density: 11 units/acre):

  • Multi-family: 8 Ridge Road (4 units), 7 Ridge Road (3 units), 20/26 Lewis Street (3 units), 140 Lincoln Road/Ryan Estate (25 units).
  • Two-family: 1 & 3 Lewis Street, 5 & 7 Lewis Street, 14 & 16 Lewis Street, 22 Lewis Street, 154 Lincoln
  • Single-family: 136 Lincoln Road, 148 Lincoln Road, 150 Lincoln Road.
  • Town-owned or business: Joseph’s, Church, 152 Lincoln Road (real estate/dental office building), red 3-S building, Station Park, Food Project, Save-a-Tree, Clark Gallery building, 9 Lewis Street, 146A Lincoln Road.

Lincoln Woods District properties (proposed new density: 8 units/acre):

  • Multi-family: 40 apartments and 94 townhouses located at 1-95 Wells Road.

Village Center District properties (proposed new density: 25 units/acre):

  • Town-owned or business: Doherty’s, resident parking lot, the mall, commuter parking lot, two small town-owned lots adjacent to the railroad tracks.

Here’s why I am voting No for Now. We are close to a solution, but we need more time, and we have more time. The town will be able to comply with the HCA by the deadline of December 31, 2024.

Flaws in the proposed zoning bylaw
  • A three-family home can be eight times bigger than a one-family home on the same size lot. This can easily be fixed by scaling the footprint allowed for buildings with fewer units. Other towns have done this in their HCA bylaws (see image at right).

    An illustration of building massing under the current R1 zoning (top) and the proposed HCA zoning amendment (bottom). Click image to enlarge.

  • We need more green space and tree protection. Other towns include green space and tree protection in their bylaws. Design guidelines are not sufficient protection.
  • Proposed 15-foot setbacks on Lewis Street should be larger; Lewis Street has 11 homes and only one building set back as close as 15 feet. Why didn’t the Planning Board incorporate the input of Lewis Street residents on this?
  • Proposed setbacks on both sides of Lincoln Road (25 feet on one side and 15 feet on the other) mean we could lose the sun-filled tree lined heart of Lincoln. The current buildings are comfortably spaced from each other, and Lincoln Road does not feel crowded by buildings. Imagine 40+ units at the mall, set back only 25 feet from Lincoln Road, with the existing large trees removed or damaged from the new construction, opposite a large apartment building across the street, also set back only 15 feet from Lincoln Road. Note that 55 units could be built on the 5+ acres across Lincoln Road proposed for rezoning (including the St Joseph’s Church parcel and adjacent properties).
  • Concentrated development in our Village Center will increase the heat island in the center of our town.
  • Development of current single-family homes is likely to occur. Owners who want to stay in their homes may change their minds when multistory buildings rise up next door, and developers offer generous prices to purchase their property.
There is a chance to do better
  • Many more people are engaged in the process now than when the districts proposed for rezoning were selected by the Housing Choice Act Working Group appointed by the Select More minds, more hearts, more residents are now aware of the implications of the proposed rezoning and are seeking input to arrive at a better solution.
  • With the new state law, the mall can be rezoned to permit multifamily housing with a 50% vote outside of the requirements of the HCA. Lincoln could determine the appropriate density number, the percentage of units that would be affordable, and the amount of parking required for commercial uses. Such a rezoning would need a 50% vote, not a two-thirds vote. The RLF would have time to present a concept plan and explain the financial requirements for economic sustainability, and the town could engage with the RLF in a partnership which would be beneficial to all.
  • After testing out Option C with the Planning Board’s proposed bylaw amendment, residents are now better informed, and understand the importance of finding at least one other parcel outside of the Lincoln Station area to accomplish HCA compliance.

Please join me in voting No for Now, and then let’s unite Lincoln and work together for a better solution.

“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: How attractive is Lincoln’s village center to developers?

By Tom Walker

Setting aside the RLF mall, how financially attractive is developing multi-unit housing in Lincoln’s village center? This is an important question that keeps coming up and has been raised again most recently on LincolnTalk. Some research I did back in November to inform my own choice before the State of the Town meeting may add some useful information to the ongoing conversation.

In November, I reached out to a developer I know who’s been involved in small and large projects around Boston for many decades. My concern was that if Lincoln’s village center is financially very attractive to developers under the HCA, it probably would make sense to err on the side of constraining multi-unit housing development opportunities there (i.e., zone for fewer units). My research led me to a different conclusion.

It turned out that my developer contact, who knows Lincoln well, owns several buildings in neighboring towns similar to Lincoln that he is evaluating for development under HCA. He was kind enough to talk me through the detailed financial analysis for one of these buildings and his analysis provides useful insights into the likelihood of development for properties (in Lincoln’s village center. His potential project involves a relatively large building (>100 units) in a town that borders Lincoln. The building provides reasonable economies of scale and already has sewer and water connections, parking, and adequate stormwater controls.

For the Lincoln village center properties, by way of contrast, parcels would need to be assembled to achieve scale economies, sewage treatment is challenging, parking is constrained, stormwater infrastructure is problematic and facing increasingly stringent state regulations. All these issues would make development in Lincoln substantially more complex and expensive.

Even with the economic advantages afforded the multi-unit housing project in the neighboring town development of the project under HCA turns out not to be financially very attractive. This is due primarily to high construction costs — besides high material and labor costs, the developer pointed to other incidental costs, such builders’ insurance, that have risen dramatically in recent years. Affordability requirements imposed by towns add to the cost. High interest rates and a pullback by lenders have also created real barriers to development. The financial analysis ultimately indicates that a developer would be just about as well off leaving his or her money in the bank as investing in this HCA development project.

While this is just one example, it suggests that development in Lincoln’s village center may not be the path to riches for developers that is sometimes claimed. Yes, lower interest rates will improve the profitability of projects. But the remaining challenges of assembling parcels to achieve scale economies, solving the septic, parking and stormwater issues, addressing affordable housing requirements, and navigating the general complexity of Lincoln’s bylaw and design guidelines all make multi-unit housing in Lincoln’s village center expensive and probably less attractive than opportunities for larger developments in other towns in the region.

Given this state of affairs, my own conclusion back in December was that an option providing the largest number of opportunities (Option C) in the village center maximizes the likelihood that Lincoln gets at least some multi-unit housing, although I’m not at all convinced that the economics will result in much actual building. In the intervening months, I’ve seen no information, data, or analysis that changes my view.

“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.

Candidates share views on HCA, community center, Town Meeting

Here are some selected questions and answers from town election candidates at the PTO forum held on March 12. More information:

Do you believe boards are obligated to follow the will of the town as expressed through TM votes?

(all candidates)

This question was a reference to the split vote by the Planning Board on whether to recommend passage of Article 3. All the candidates answered yes, “but you have obligation to show the facts in an unbiased way and not put your finger on the scale,” Postlethwait said.

Taylor: “If boards are unwilling to support it, you’re effectively undercutting the whole process” of Town Meeting and the work done by town volunteers who studied the issue and made the recommendation.

Glass: “It’s incumbent on boards to take that [Town Meeting vote] as a direct will of the town.”

Clark: “Yes, of course… [but board endorsement decisions] should be intimately connected with what residents want.”

If elected, what will you do to reunite the town?

(Select Board candidates)

Clark suggested following Brookline’s example in tackling the Housing Choice Act. “They did an extremely complicated, secret-sauce solution — they brought everyone together and forged consensus,” he said dryly. “That’s exactly what I would do if you voted me to the Select Board.”

“I have great faith in Lincoln’s resilience,” Glass said. “This is not the first or last time [we’ll have] difficult conversations. It’s OK to disagree about things; the choice is about how we handle that disagreement. We have to have trust in the democratic process.” She also noted that Brookline and Milton (which reversed an earlier vote to comply with the HCA) have a representative town meeting form of government, unlike Lincoln’s open town meeting.

Do you see flaws with the HCA law?

(all candidates)

Taylor: “There are things that could have been improved in HCA, but there’s really nothing in it you can’t work with.”

Clark: “The spirit [of the HCA] is something Lincoln has complied with for 40 years. We have done in spirit what the state was trying to get us to do.”

Postlethwait: “I have a huge issue with the HCA. The state could have forced developers to have 20% affordable housing. There’s not a housing crisis, there’s an affordable housing crisis.” Lincoln should resubmit an affordable-housing feasibility study to achieve that goal, she added.

Glass: “There were definitely some flaws. There was no provision for affordable housing at all.” After making some adjustments in the law’s specific requirements, “the state has actually done a pretty good job of allowing towns some flex as to how this plays out for them.”

If the HCA doesn’t pass, what process do you propose to bring the community to “yes” by December?

(Planning Board candidates)

Postlethwait recommended disbanding the Housing Choice Act Working Group and form a new group with renters and residents of South Lincoln “to better represent the town so more voices can be heard.” When the rezoning options were being discussed in the fall, she charged, “people dug in their heels and refused” to negotiate.

“Rezoning was being reconsidered all along alongside the HCA. The idea that we suddenly put it together is a misconception,” Taylor said. As for renegotiating for a different option, “I’m less optimistic than Sarah is,” he added. “When you look at [Options] E and C, there are key differences and I don’t know there’s a way to agree on those because it’s pretty fundamental.

“Getting approval from the state is not quick,” Taylor continued. “Even though we have several months, it would be a difficult lift to get there.”

Do you believe Town Meeting is equitable and proper in this day and age? If not, how can we make it so?

(all candidates)

While all the candidates agreed that Town Meeting is difficult for some residents to attend in person (those with small children, those with mobility issues or fear of illness, etc.), they noted that the process is dictated by state law and can’t be changed at the local level.

Clark recommended a change whereby important issues could be voted on at the ballot box and Town Meeting restricted to “other things that didn’t have such a major impact on people.”

Postlethwait urged the town to provide “clickers” for voting at Town Meeting to speed up the process (something that will be discussed on March 23), as well as free child care rather than the $40-per-child cost required by LEAP.

“Town Meeting isn’t equitable. It’s the historical way we’ve run our town governments, which worked pretty well when everyone who came was old white men, but things have changed since then,” Taylor said. “It’s a state-level problem, and it would take a very thoroughgoing deep dive to figure out how to change” the all-in-person format, which is “very inspiring — I would miss it.”

Glass noted that several measures in recent years have streamlined Town Meeting, such as expanded use of the consent calendar and having personations about some warrant articles ahead of time and available online. The only feasible alternative is to switch from open town meeting to representative town meeting, “but you lose your voice that way. When you have everyone in the room discussing those issues, it builds community even when the issues are hard.”

Is the community center a good use of the town’s tax dollars?
(all candidates)

Here the candidates disagreed. Glass said yes, cited the costs of “nothing happening and renovating town buildings. There is no sort of easy, cheap solution for properly taking care of our buildings,” largely because of the town’s stringent building code and ban using fossil fuels in new buildings or gut renovations.

Taylor said he voted for the 75% option in December that “would cover our needs but be more fiscally responsible. But I’m also committed to the town government structure we have. Town Meeting decided and I’m fully behind the choice that was made.”

“I’ll go along with whatever the [March 23] vote is, but if it’s voted down, it could mean a much more modest proposal. I think it costs too much money and can be done in a more frugal way,” Clark said. “We have the highest [per-household] indebtedness of almost any town in the state… Maybe we can revisit what the community center should be.”

Postlethwait agreed. “The Council on Aging & Human Services should be its own building and there are better places for it.” For example, the town preschool moved from the Hartwell building to the renovated school, “and there’s got to be a classroom or two we can use.” Water mains need to be replaced, among other future expenses; “there’s always things we have pay for as a town, and I just don’t think a brand-new $25 million building is the way to do it,” she said.

Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden reminded attendees that the community center funding must win a two-thirds majority on March 23 to pass, as well as a simple majority at the ballot box two days later.