My Take on Planning Board Meeting on February 20, 2024
By Laurie Gray

Here is  my take on the Planning Board meeting 2/20.  Please, if I made any mistakes or if anything is unclear, let me know.  There is an important meeting tonight, so I wanted to get this out there sooner rather than later.  This is roughly the order of the comments, so if you want to go to parts of the recording to hear specific discussions, I encourage you to do so.

• Resident had concerns that affordable housing is limited to 10%, which is lower than what we usually ask for.  Developers can also pay a fee rather than provide affordable housing.   It was noted that this could make the area exclusive, rather than inclusive.
  
  

• A resident asked about the amenities in Lincoln station besides commercial since commercial could be lowered or eliminated.  PB member said Drumlin Farm, Codman Farm, and Trails are nearby.  PB director said you can walk to the school, the town offices and the library (my note–this is possible, but it is more than a mile walk).
  
  

• Resident noted confusion on how much housing the Planning Board wants. Some people say that we need to have more  housing, but then some say that we don't think we are going to get a lot of housing because of the lot sizes and that owners don't want to sell.  She asked the Planning Board: how much housing would you like and which lots do you hope would get developed?  Do we want combined lots for bigger developments or not?  What about the town land, like the DPW and commuter rail lot that are included in Article 3/Option C? A Planning Board member said that it is up to individual owners.  As for town land, The Planning Board has no plan.
  
  

• A resident asked about outdoor equipment like  dumpsters. In the consultant's “test fit” model of 92 units, the area that currently has dumpsters was used for parking.  The Planning Board said that the buildings can have dumpsters. They did not address how to fit them.
  
  

• A resident asked: in the design guidelines, it says that the front yards should be a pleasing public view. How enforceable is that?  A Planning Board member said that it was enforceable.  (My note:  town counsel was present but did not comment on this. I would be interested in town counsel’s view  on case law for this because this is obviously subjective).
  
  

• Residents asked questions about traffic.  It was a concern to residents that there could be many small developments that would add up to a lot of traffic.  The Planning Board stated that the town would have to pay for traffic mitigation, but that a developer would have a failed project if there was too much traffic, which they would not want.  A resident noted that when the Arshad land was being considered for development there were extensive studies on various scenarios (different types of housing including lower cost rentals and higher cost condos) that examined the economics for the town and the effects on traffic in different areas of town.  This has not been done for this zoning proposal.  A Planning Board member replied that developments in other towns are more likely to impact traffic than local developments but offered nothing to support this statement.
  
  

• A member of the Wayland Planning Board commended us for being so far along in the process. It sounded like Wayland is not this far along.  She asked if there was push back regarding the “street activating” language in the bylaws.  This elicited some laughter.  Wayland has been asking the state a bunch of questions and have been reporting that the state is changing their mind on a lot of different things. She did not elaborate on what aspects of the HCA guidelines were continuing to be changed, so there is no knowing if these changes could also impact Lincoln's planning.
  
  

• A resident asked if the side setbacks on Lewis Street could be reconsidered. With a 15 ft side setback, a large building could be very close to their neighbors.  No  one responded to this comment.
  
  

• A resident asked if the setbacks in the Codman district could be flipped. Right now the front set back is 30 ft and the back set back is 50 ft. If these were reversed the buildings would be less imposing on the road.
  
  

• A resident asked:  Belmont has zonings that says triple-deckers and 20 unit buildings, depending on how many units are in the building, have different requirements for lot coverage.  Could the Planning Board consider having a scaled lot coverage for buildings of different size units?  There was no reply.
  
  

• A resident asked about a tree bylaw to restrict cutting down mature trees in the setbacks. Such bylaws protecting mature trees have been adopted by some of our peer towns.  A Planning Board member stated that this would likely have to be tackled next year and would apply to the whole town.
  
  

• A resident said the special permit to reduce retail feels “scary.” The Planning Board agreed that this has been controversial.
  
  

• A resident asked that the Planning Board/Select Board pass over the HCA vote in March to allow more time for compromise.  She noted that the first public forum was February 8th, and the Planning Board needs to take time to review these comments.  Otherwise, these feedback sessions seem like a sham.  She reported there are 3 main themes to comments:  

  1. Add an additional area to the HCA district to reduce the potential density in the village center.  

  2. Request professional analysis of the proposed zoning traffic, economics, affordability, a massing study, et cetera.  

  3. Take more time beyond the March town meeting to develop a zoning amendment that is more responsive to the views of residents.  Many people are concerned that if a proposed amendment receives barely a 50% vote, there will continue to be significant ill will within the town and it will fester for years.
     
     

• A Planning Board member reported that she did not see a way to resolve the division.  “It’s 2 different philosophies.”  Another PB member stated that she did not think it was 2 different philosophies, and that there is sound reasoning to take the Mall out so that the town can plan it better, work on affordable housing and things that might not be possible through the HCA.  However, she recognized that the board has been charged with zoning for Option C, which includes the Mall.  A different PB member wondered if the town really understood what 25 units per acre really meant for the mall (i.e. 100 units) before the December vote, and wondered if “off-loading” some of the density elsewhere in town (something like D1) would be preferable.  He also agreed that having a barely winning vote is not preferred for the town.  A different planning board member stated that 60% wanted to include the mall in the HCA, and we had to honor that.  However, a different PB member said the HCA was not about NOT developing the mall, but that maybe doing it side by side with the HCA so we can do it right.
  
  

• A resident encouraged the Planning Board to go forward with the March vote, stating that the “silent majority” of the town supports the current plan. 
  
  

• A resident (who was a little hard to hear in the recording) stated that he has worked in development and thought that a non-profit developer could offer more affordable housing at the Mall.  A lot of money in typical developments go into marketing, which leads to higher rents/less affordable housing.  The Planning Board responded that he should talk to the RLF about this.