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

South Lincoln/HCA*

Final bylaw includes adjustments for affordability and commercial use

The multifamily and mixed-use overlay zoning map approved by the Planning Board. Click to enlarge.

The HCA zoning bylaw amendment approved on February 26 by the Planning Board includes changes to maximize housing affordability and to strictly limit the ability of an owner to reduce the amount of commercial space in the mixed-use subdistrict.

Going into the meeting, the draft required 10% of multifamily housing units to be affordable. This was because the state would not allow Lincoln to specify its usual 15% minimum unless the town could show in a feasibility study (which it was not able to do) that that higher ratio would be economically viable.

But the board turned around the burden of proof. Section 12.9.3.2 of the final bylaw now says that 15% will be required unless the state Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities determines in writing that it is not feasible, and then 10% will be required. “This will allow the town to pursue the 15% with EOHLC without having to go back to Town Meeting to change the bylaw to 15%,” Director of Planning and Land Use Paula Vaughn MacKenzie explained on February 29.

Commercial space

Section 12.9.2.3 (part a.10) still says that a minimum of 33% of the gross floor area of all buildings on the lot must be dedicated to commercial use and that the Planning Board may reduce the required percentage of commercial uses by Special Permit “upon a finding that economic and market conditions do not support the required amount of commercial space.”

However, the board added this to the paragraph:

“To support such a finding, the applicant must provide documentation of significant periods of vacancy or non-payment of rent, demonstrate reasonable efforts of marketing such space, and present a report by a qualified independent real estate marketing consultant. The Town may also conduct its own third-party assessment paid for by the applicant pursuant to MGL, c. 44 s. 53G.”

The amended bylaw will go before voters at he March 23 Annal Town Meeting.

Draft of HCA design guidelines released

Editor’s note: This article was amended on February 29 to include a link to remarks accompanying some of the slides.

New buildings that go up in the future HCA subdistricts will have to adhere to design guidelines presented as a draft at a February 27 community forum.

The slide decks from the forum (one with notes and one without) recap the feedback received by the Housing Choice Act Working Group — feedback that has shifted over time between a preference for concentrating affordable housing at the mall vs. spreading it around town — plus resulting changes that HCAWG and the Planning Board made, and answers to some questions. (Remarks by Select Board and Housing Choice Act Working Group member Jennifer Glass in some of the slides in the deck without notes are truncated but can be accessed here.)

The guidelines beginning on page 8 of the two slide decks aim to “ensure new buildings are in keeping with the scale and character appropriate for a village center and support the high quality of design and connection to the outdoors that Lincoln values.” The slides include pictures of various types of building designs that would be acceptable and lay out guidelines with an emphasis on:

  • Open space
  • Front setbacks
  • Enhancing connectivity through sidewalks and paths
  • Minimizing the visual impact of parking
  • Thoughtful landscaping with native and drought-tolerant plants whenever possible

The required site plan review for each project will continue to include minimizing impact on trees as well as imposing controls on storm water management, lighting, and hardscape. Building guidelines also call for articulated facades and use of half stories and stepbacks to break up massing. All new developments should include accessible public space such as restaurant seating, public gathering space, and street furniture.

For mixed-use buildings:

  • Sidewalks and outdoor space adjacent to buildings should be designed to accommodate outdoor seating and gathering areas that complement the commercial space within the building.
  • Front setback areas should be designed either as a public visual amenity or accessible public space.

Other guidelines in the draft:

  • Public directional signage should follow current town signage design
  • Outdoor displays must be approved by the Planning Board
  • Bicycle racks are required
  • Sustainability is required through the town’s Specialized Stretch Code and Ten Town Pilot Program.
Upcoming meetings:
  • Rural Land Foundation forum outlining latest thoughts about redevelopment of the mall via Zoom — Thursday, Feb. 29 at 7 p.m.
  • Town Meeting preview forum on Housing Choice Act — Thursday, March 14 from 7–8:30 p.m. (details TBA)
  • Planning Board meeting to review and approve design guidelines to submit to Town Meeting — Tuesday, March 19 at 7 p.m. (Zoom only)
  • Annual Town Meeting — Saturday, March 23 starting at 9:30 a.m. in Donaldson Auditorium

Planning Board splits 3-2 on endorsing zoning amendments

The multifamily and mixed-use overlay zoning map approved by the Planning Board. Click to enlarge.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with links for the bylaw and accompanying map, and a quote by Trish O’Hagan was removed after she said it was inaccurate.

In a dramatic split echoing the townwide controversy about proposed zoning amendments, the Planning Board voted 3-2 on February 26 to endorse the bylaw they wrote to be presented at the March 23 Annual Town Meeting.

The board’s vote came after members made final tweaks to the bylaw based on Option C, which residents approved at a Special Town Meeting in December 2023. The outline of that option, which has been forwarded to the state for a Housing Choice Act compliance check, would allow multifamily housing clustered in South Lincoln, including over a redeveloped mall. Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives formed to oppose that idea, instead seeking to omit the mall from the HCA rezoning package and spreading permitted affordable housing around other parts of town. 

Board Chair Margaret Olson presented a compilation of HCA feedback they’ve received in recent months. Various residents have advocated for and against things like whether a fourth story should be allowed, limiting or increasing allowed parking, how to best preserve commercial activity, and even whether or not to pass over the measure at Town Meeting altogether and work on a new plan.

Given the divisiveness of the issue, “we are quite prepared to be given new direction if that is what the town would like us to do,” Olson said.

During the public comment period, Deb Howe worried that the amended bylaw didn’t address the notion of an underground or above-ground parking structure which might be needed to accommodate new residents as well as businesses. Ben Shiller argued that it would be very difficult to fit the 100 units of multifamily housing that the Rural Land Foundation has said it needs to sustain the mall’s economic viability.

“There seems to be a lack of analysis around implications of rezoning,” said David Cuetos, adding that the town-commissioned feasibility study for allowing more than the state minimum of affordable units was “badly bungled.”

Susan Hall Mygatt, who at last week’s public hearing suggested passing over the measure, said on Monday that while the board is apparently obligated to advance it to Town Meeting, “you’re not required to sell it or recommend we vote for it.” 

It was clear that a unanimous vote wasn’t going to happen when Ephraim Flint read a statement signed by him and fellow member Lynn DeLisi asking their fellow board members to go back to the drawing board and craft a bylaw with more public input and consensus.

While most residents agree that the town should comply with the HCA while also preserving the town’s character, there is “little agreement on how the rezoning should be done,” the statement said. Additionally, some of those who voted for Option C in December “have said they would have voted differently had they better understood the options and their consequences in more detail.” 

Flint and DeLisi suggested removing the mall subdistrict from the amended bylaw and then creating a committee of members “equal in opposing views” to work with the Planning Board on a compromise solution for other areas to rezone, including the mall. If their fellow board members didn’t go along with these suggestions, they asked that it be “formally stated” at Town Meeting that “two of the five Planning Board members were opposed to bringing this entire package to a vote at this time.”

How best to guide redevelopment of the mall has been a bone of contention along with where in town to allow multifamily housing. The board included the mall in the HCA bylaw revision because the state changed its guidelines last summer so towns could count housing in mixed-use subdistricts as part of its required total. “We took that opportunity because it would reduce the amount of units we would have to zone for elsewhere” in town, Olson said. “All along, we have tried to minimize the compliance footprint.”

“What [the RLF] has shown us to date, I would have liked to have seen a year ago,” DeLisi said. 

“You and me both,” Olson replied.

“We’re looking at zoning changes that are going to change our town for generations. We have to be careful and thoughtful about it and not be pushing too fast,” DeLisi said. “It’ll be a slim margin no matter what. Let’s try to get 80% of people at [a later] Town Meeting to say yeah, let’s vote for this compromise.”

But Olson firmly rejected the idea of the Planning Board not endorsing Article 3 on the Town Meeting warrant or passing it over altogether. “To me as a voter, if I voted for something that gave direction for the board and the board did not do that, I would be absolutely outraged,” she said.

Olson indicated that having the bylaw rejected by residents in March would not necessarily be a wholly negative outcome. “People get anxious when things are voted down at Town Meeting. I’m like, ‘That is information. We will take that information and act on it along the lines you are describing’,” she said. “I feel like we should do our duty as Planning Board members and present Option C as we were directed by Town Meeting, and if Town Meeting tells us ‘We have changed our minds,’ that’s fine… People talk about a silent majority — but we have no idea who’s the majority. We’ll hear from the town.”

“Developers are trying to sell a project that people want to live in, “ Nicholson said. “If you put so many restrictions on things, nothing will happen and that’s been the problem over decades. That’s why we are where we are. At some point you do have to take a little bit of risk and accept that it’s not going to please everyone.”

DeLisi and Flint eventually voted “nay” on the motion to endorse the HCA zoning bylaws as amended that evening, with the other three (Olson, Craig Nicholson, and Gary Taylor) voting “aye.”

My Turn: HCA in Lincoln – managing risks and finding solutions

By Rob Ahlert

When it comes to finding a solution to the Housing Choice Act riddle for Lincoln, there are many paths the town could choose to go down. When choosing which path to go down, an organization (e.g., our town) usually carefully identifies its options and the risks vs rewards for each, ultimately choosing the option which has the lowest risk and the highest reward. The conundrum we face in Lincoln is that the reward for one group (e.g., a lot more housing in one area) is in fact a major risk for the other group (too much housing in one area). So how do we as an organization (Lincoln) move forward to make a decision when we don’t even have the same objectives?

As you probably are suspecting, the right answer is to find a compromise.

OK, but how do we compromise? How do we not end up with a solution that only 51% of the population is satisfied with?

This is where sitting down together and documenting the risks/fears that folks have is critical.  And it will get very touchy because it’s hard not to quickly dismiss someone’s fears when you think you already have the answer. This is where talking, listening and documenting risks becomes critically important. What are the risks? Can we quantify and agree on the likelihood and impact on a 1 to 10 scale for each risk? Are there any obvious mitigations?

During a workshop or series of workshops, each risk can be graded on likelihood (1 to 10) and Impact (1 to 10).  The risk can either be “Accepted,” “Needs More Info,” or “Mitigated” and a workshop participant (or participants) can be assigned to take responsibility for that action. Below are some examples from a list of risks I’ve heard on both sides of the discussion.  

  • Risk #1: Developers put in offers on over 50% of the parcels in the first year after maps are published.
  • Risk #2: Developers will not build family-friendly three-bedroom apartments or condos.
  • Risk #3: Traffic will be bumper to bumper on Lincoln Road from Five Corners to Codman Road, not just during the rush hours but also at other times of the day and on weekends.

These are just three examples. There are likely 50+ unique risks we could document if we had a workshop on this topic.

When faced with a decision that has a lot of risks, does leadership go ahead and choose an option that exposes the organization to potential large downside impacts, especially given that reversing this decision would be over a year away? I would hope not, especially in a consensus-driven organization like a town. This is not a private enterprise with a CEO, this is a town.

So we document a lot of risks/fears from folks on both sides of discussion. What do we do next? Now comes the really hard work. Do we decide to just accept one of these risks because both the likelihood and impact are so low? Are we aware of an immediate mitigation that we can apply that will lower the likelihood or impact? Do we need more information? How much time and money do we need to gather more info or mitigate?

If you’ve read this far, some of you are really rolling your eyes saying this is way too much trouble to go through to get to a solution to the HCA riddle. But that’s the point. By going through this trouble, we better understand risks that each other see and find a consensus solution, choosing a compromise path.

That is what Brookline did, that’s what we can do as well. On March 23rd, vote “No for Now” on the HCA-related article and then we can get to “Yes” together before December 2024 and easily comply.

Calling all leaders and/or project managers/therapists to the table!

“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: Misconceptions about the Housing Choice Act

By Bob Domnitz

It’s distressing to see the continuing confusion about the HCA and the town’s response to the HCA. From my perspective as a former member of the Planning Board and Housing Choice Act Working Group, I will address two of the most common misconceptions.

Misconception #1: The HCA falls particularly hard on Lincoln.

— No, the HCA does not fall hard on Lincoln. We can easily comply.

Misconception #2: The HCA is complex…too complex for residents to understand.

— No, the law is not complex. Town leadership’s response to the law is complex. Near the beginning of presentations made by town leadership, the following principle is stated: Rezone near public transportation and town amenities.

This is a policy decision made by our town that goes far beyond the requirements of state law. State law only requires that our town locate 20% of the rezoning near public transportation. At a webinar held in early 2022 that town staff and I attended, the state agency that administers the HCA recognized that some towns would be unduly burdened by the new law. To illustrate their point, they showed a map of one town’s neighborhood around its commuter rail station. The town had significant wetlands, conservation land, and other land that was not developable. That town was Lincoln. In recognition of this undue burden, the guidelines issued by the state agency in August 2022 allowed towns to place some rezoning anywhere in town if they didn’t have much developable land near public transportation. Lincoln was one such town. Under the state agency’s guidelines, Lincoln was given flexibility to put 80% of its rezoning anywhere in town.

The complexity of the town’s response to the HCA is, in large part, a consequence of the town’s decision to disregard the flexibility given us by the state. There is no undue burden imposed upon us by the state. We have created the undue burden.

I’ve stated above that we can easily comply with the HCA. We need eight acres of land rezoned near the train station and 34 acres rezoned at a suitable location, anywhere in town. There are myriad combinations of land parcels that would meet the criteria. It’s not worth debating whether we should comply with the HCA. It’s not worth debating whether the state’s requirements fall harshly on Lincoln. It’s not worth debating whether the state has properly accounted for housing at Hanscom Air Force Base. We can comply. We should comply. We can easily comply.

A sound approach to the HCA would adopt a simple plan that achieves compliance. We would then be free to pursue our goals for affordable housing and mall redevelopment outside the formulaic, rigid constraints of the HCA. For example, we could choose to rezone Lewis Street, the mall, the south side of Lincoln Road, Codman Road, etc., with zoning decisions made by Town Meeting in the traditional manner, without the arbitrary constraints of the HCA. Importantly, we would be able to invoke the town’s inclusionary housing requirement to provide more affordable housing than the HCA allows.

I wish town leadership would trust residents to make these decisions. Instead, town leadership has chosen to combine three elements — HCA compliance, housing, and mall redevelopment — into one omnibus package. Because the package includes HCA compliance, it spreads the coercive urgency of the HCA’s deadline onto the other two elements of the package: housing and mall redevelopment. That’s what has led to the rush for action on the entire package. That’s what has led to the complexity of the package. Residents might have wanted to deal with housing and the mall separately from HCA compliance, but town leadership did not give us that option in December and we are not being given that option now.

The town’s initial decision to locate all rezoning at Lincoln Station, disregarding the flexibility given to us by the state, has led to the complex hodgepodge of subdistricts that we’ll be voting on in March. It may have been hard to foresee that we’d end up here as a result of the simple choice to put the entire HCA district at Lincoln Station. But sometimes, when you get to the end of a design process, you realize that initial decisions need to be re-examined. We are at such a time. We should rethink the initial decision to comply with the HCA by rezoning only near public transportation and town amenities.

Several years ago, the state changed the Zoning Act to allow a simple majority at town meetings to approve multifamily housing-related zoning amendments. Under prior law, these zoning amendments required a two-thirds supermajority vote for adoption. At our December 2023 Town Meeting, a scaled-down zoning plan was presented by a group of residents. Their plan got 37% of the vote, even though they were denied the opportunity to give a cohesive presentation. If that vote is replicated at our March Annual Town Meeting, leadership’s omnibus zoning package may pass as the least popular, most divisive zoning amendment in Lincoln’s history.

I urge town leadership to withdraw their plan and work with residents to craft a simpler plan that we can all support.

Bob Domnitz (Lincoln Planning Board, 2003-2015; 2020-2023 Housing Choice Act Working Group, 2022-2023)
bobdom333@hotmail.com

If any residents would like to discuss this with me, please send me a private email with your phone number and I’ll call you back as soon as I’m able.

“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.

Worries persist about HCA rezoning

The Planning Board will vote on the revised zoning bylaw on February 26, but residents still have questions, and its fate at the March 23 Town Meeting is far from certain.

Echoing a frequent thread in discussions about the HCA rezoning, attendees at the February 20 public hearing worried that a site plan review won’t be enough to control what gets built when multifamily and mixed-use developments are allowed by right in parts of South Lincoln under the new state-mandated rules. 

“Site plan review has teeth in that we can insist the development be done in a manner that is consistent with the neighborhood and the design guidelines, but you can’t use it to make it impossible for the developer to do something by right,” Planning Board Chair Margaret Olson said. Developers can be fined and/or denied an occupancy permit if they don’t comply, she added.

Traffic from commercial and residential units is also a concern that the board can’t control ahead of time. “We will look at traffic as there are projects,” Olson said. A traffic study and any resulting mitigation requirements “are a negotiation with the developer.”

“Then what can you say no to?” resident Barbara Peskin asked. The answer: essentially nothing. As an example, for a single-family home, “the town and board cannot deny your right to build a house on your property,” Olson said. Screening, lighting and other aspects can be controlled, “but we can’t tell you we don’t like your house… we cannot refuse a by-right use.”

Resident Susan Hall Mygatt urged the board to pass over the measure at Town Meeting and schedule a Special Town Meeting in June or the fall to give more time to come up with a better bylaw while still meeting the December 2024 state deadline. 

The board’s alleged failure to respond to resident comments “makes the public forums look like a sham, and will exacerbate the unhealthy tensions that are now evident between the board and the Selects on the one hand, and many residents who do not feel they have been heard,” said Mygatt, reading from a statement. “I and others are concerned that if the proposed amendment receives barely a 50% vote, there will continue to be significant ill will within the town and it will fester for years. This can be avoided.”

Along the same lines, board member Lynn DeLisi asked if there was any way to delay the board’s February 26 vote, but Olson said there wasn’t, since the board also has to approve design guidelines before Town Meeting.

“For better or for worse, we have to follow the direction given to us by Town Meeting” in December, when residents voted to go ahead with Option C to allow all of the new multifamily development within South Lincoln, Olson said. “If the town has changed its mind, the town will tell us no by voting no. I don’t think any of us should be upset by that prospect. If it’s not approved, that’s OK — that’s part of the process… absent considerably more public engagement that we have time for before March, we have what we have… we are in this bind.”

But resident Louis Zipes urged the board to go ahead with the March vote despite the controversy. “You’ve done an excellent job of adjusting to the town’s needs,” he said. “We recognize that not everyone will be satisfied. You have the support of a silent majority in the town.”

My Turn: Support for a professional 3D representation of Lincoln’s future possibilities

By Barbara Peskin

I attended the Select Board meeting on Monday, Feb. 5 when a request for a massing study of Option C was discussed. Typically, a massing study is done for a proposed new building or project. In this case, because rezoning 70 acres and 38 properties under HCA has no specific project on the table, a massing study would have to be done for an imagined scenario of buildings and housing on all the different properties. The boards would decide on a scenario or range of scenarios for different building types and parcel groupings.

In my opinion, and the reason I signed and supported the request along with 110 others is that any 3D visualization of possible development makes me a more knowledgeable voter on March 23. I am open to voting yes or no on March 23 because I know we have until December 2024 to file our HCA compliance plan with the state.

At the Monday meeting, the Select Board chair said that the discussion was preliminary. He asked the Planning Board chair in attendance how a massing study could be used. In response, the Planning Board chair stated that whatever might happen with Option C is “wild speculation” and for that reason a massing study would not have meaning.

While I appreciate that a Planning and Select Board might have to live with “wild speculation” on five acres or five properties, it is difficult for me to understand why choosing a route of “wild speculation” on 70 acres and 38 properties in the Lincoln Station area is proper planning for a town, the people, the land, or wildlife. The town could choose less “wild” choices to comply with HCA and then plan for sustainable increased housing outside of HCA.

My ask of the Select Board now is that they have a broad discussion about this concept of “wild speculation” on 38 properties and what they think of that in terms of Lincoln’s future. As town leaders, could Planning Board and Select Board members tell us which 10 properties they think would be best/prime for development? What is their vision?

Should the Select Board move forward with a professional massing study, I hope they consider suggestions that came up at the Monday meeting. They could ask to see examples of a variety of buildings throughout the 38 properties. We could see different 3-story buildings with 10 units, 11 units and 25 units, representing the different sub-district densities. We could also see an example of some grouped properties and full buildout on those. For example, could we see what a 77 unit development on 7 acres might look like if the block at Codman Corner, Lincoln Road, and Lewis Street becomes grouped. We could see what a building on two acres with 22 units looks like. With 38 properties, we should be able to include a wide range of examples.

The results of the massing study could be provided to all residents through the town website. I hope the Select Board will continue the discussion and that a massing study or similar professional 3D representation will be made available to us ahead of the design guidelines forum on February 27.

“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.

Residents ask for massing study showing what the mall might look like

Uncertainty and trepidation about future changes in the look of South Lincoln have been driving much of the discussion around the Housing Choice Act rezoning, particularly with regard to the mall. That concern arose again at the February 5 Select Board meeting when residents submitted a letter asking for a massing study to get a better idea of what the redeveloped mall might look like.

“There’s a fear that this thing could be massive,” resident Lynne Smith said. “There’s a desire to have some that goes a step beyond illustrations.” But Planning Board Chair Margaret Olson said that such a study would be “wildly speculative” in the absence of a concrete proposal from a developer.

A massing study is a three-dimensional representation of a proposed building’s shape and size in addition to its footprint, elevations (side views) and floor plans. “Such studies are done when there is a plan, but there is no plan,” Olson said at a Select Board meeting discussion on February 5. “Zoning sets out rules, and within those rules, there are a nearly infinite number of things you can do” in varying degrees of attractiveness and likelihood. For example, under current zoning, the owner of a conforming two-acre lot could theoretically build a 20,000-square-foot house by right. And the Planning Board still has to approve each project after a site plan review, she noted. 

Without first doing an analysis of the septic and wetlands characteristics of a given property, and knowing exactly what the property owner hopes to do, a massing study “would be completely meaningless,” Olson said.

“One hundred and ten people don’t think it’s meaningless,” responded resident Barbara Peskin, referring to the number of signatories to the letter (see her “My Turn” piece on the issue).

The Rural Land Foundation, which owns the mall, has shared conceptual drawings of what a three-story building with housing on the top two floors and commercial on the ground floor might look like, but neither the RLF nor a developer has submitted a specific proposal. 

The RLF unveiled one possibility to comply with the HCA at a January 18 public forum. Upcoming meetings and forums:

  • Tuesdays, Feb. 13 and March 5 — Planning Board meetings on proposed design guidelines for the HCA district. Residents may use this form to comment on the draft. 
  • Tuesday, Feb. 20 — Planning Board public hearing on the amended zoning bylaw, 7–8:30 p.m., Town Hall and on Zoom.
  • Tuesday, Feb. 27 — In-person public forum on design guidelines hosted by the Planning Board and Housing Choice Act Working Group, 7–8:30 p.m., Lincoln School.
  • Thursday, Feb. 29 — RLF public forum on the mall, 7 p.m., Zoom (passcode: 940342)

Correction

The January 25 article headlined “Planning Board unveils proposed HCA rezoning rules” mistakenly said that the newer Tack Room building at the mall was not part of the Village Center zoning subdistrict. In fact, the entire Rural Land Foundation property is part of the subdistrict, but the redevelopment proposal shared by RLF does not include the post office/Tack Room building.

Also, the ending time for the February 8 forum was listed incorrectly. It will be from 6:30 to 8 p.m.

Planning Board unveils proposed HCA rezoning rules

The Mall at Lincoln Station (2016 photo)

The Planning Board has released a draft of its zoning map and bylaw amendments establishing new multifamily zoning overlay districts to comply with the Housing Choice Act on January 23. There will be several public forums and hearings before residents vote on a final draft at Town Meeting in March.

The draft is summarized and linked on the January 24 update on the Housing Choice Act Working Group website. Highlights for the mandatory mixed-use Village Center subdistrict:

  • 33% of the floor area of all the buildings on the lot must be commercial
  • At least 80% of the building’s ground floor frontage facing the public road and the first 100 feet of the primary access must be commercial or street-activating uses.
  • If the total commercial development on the lot reaches 45,000 square feet of commercial use, the 33% minimum requirement will no longer apply. The Planning Board may reduce the required percentage of commercial uses by special permit upon a finding that economic and market conditions do not support the required amount of commercial space.
  • There are several commercial uses that are not permitted, including service stations or repair shops, manufacturing and assembly, gun sales. Drive-through services are also prohibited except by special permit.
  • A maximum density of 25 residential units per acre is allowed, and at least 10% of the units must be affordable housing units.
  • There must be at least one parking spot for each residential unit. The number of spaces for commercial units will be determined by the Planning Board during site plan review. There will be no parking in front of buildings except as approved by the Planning Board.

The draft will most likely be amended based on public feedback gathered at several upcoming sessions:

  • Thursday, Feb 8 — Zoning bylaw forum, 6:30–8 p.m. in person at Bemis Hall.
  • Friday, Feb. 9 — Zoning bylaw forum, 8:30–10 a.m. via Zoom
  • Tuesday, Feb. 20 — Zoning bylaw public hearing, 7–8:30 p.m. on Town Hall and on Zoom
  • Tuesday, Feb. 27 — Forum on design guidelines (not yet released), 7–8:30 p.m., Lincoln School
  • Thursday, March 14 — Town Meeting preview forum, 7–8:30 p.m. via Zoom

In the Village Center subdistrict, the mall’s bank building (currently two floors) and the Something Special building (currently one floor) are being proposed for redevelopment. That space totals about 13,000 square feet, Rural Land Foundation Executive Director Geoff McGean said in an email to the Lincoln Squirrel.

There are currently no first-floor vacancies in the Something Special building and one small unleased office space on the second floor of the newer Tack Room building, which is not part of the property being proposed for redevelopment by the RLF. Those two buildings have approximately 13,000 square feet and 12,000 square feet of rentable space, respectively, McGean said.

Asked if the RLF would raise rents (as calculated by square footage) in a redeveloped building, McGean was equivocal. “Out of respect for all the tenants, we can’t give you specific rent amounts and it would be premature to speculate on future rents since market conditions could change significantly by the time any new space is built,” he said. “We will work with all the tenants to try to meet their future needs. We anticipate that some of the tenants may want smaller spaces.”

It’s still unclear where the current tenants (assuming they plan to reopen in the redeveloped building) will go while construction is underway.

The post office and Donelan’s both threatened to leave in the early 2000s unless they got more space. That space was built only after a seven-year public process. The project cost about $9 million and was financed largely by a mortgage taken out by the RLF which it’s still repaying.