Dear Joseph, In the more than 40 years that I have lived in Lincoln, I don’t think I’ve seen or read a more thorough and thoughtful analysis of a proposed project than what you have just shared on LincolnTalk.
I, too, fully support the Nature Link proposal because it continues the legacy of Lincoln as I have known it, not to mention the benefits we all enjoy today. I also recognize that a change of this perceived magnitude can initially seem overwhelming to some, but so, too, did it seem to some people decades ago. Knowing this, I personally feel a debt of gratitude to those who came before us for overcoming those initial fears to preserve over 40% of the natural landscape in Lincoln. By marrying the interests of private landowners with modest development, Lincoln became a nationally known model for how to become stewards of conservation land. In the case of the Nature Link proposal before us, the marriage is not only among long-held landowners and a developer of much needed modest homes but it also unites the interests of a non-profit institution dedicated to connecting inner city youth with nature while preserving the largest unprotected forested area left in Lincoln. I do hope many will join me on June 25th in voting to support this project in its entirety. This is truly a unique opportunity of a lifetime, and I hope that the Lincoln community will come together to continue our legacy as leaders in living according to the tenets of a true commonwealth. And Joseph, thank you again for your significant contribution to this effort! Respectfully, Ken Hurd Lifting the Human Spirit by Design 781-259-8900 cell www.keha.com > On May 28, 2025, at 12:01 AM, Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > [This post in its entirety can be found here > (https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d). It's formatted for an easier > read and contains a number of images, links, and references. I will continue > to update it with new questions and answers as additional conversation > develops and more information becomes available.] > > Hello neighbors. I live on Page Road and abut the Farrington land. Like some > of you, I was skeptical of the Nature Link proposal at first. But after > spending real time with the details, I now believe this is exactly the kind > of thoughtful, balanced solution we need in Lincoln. It protects land, > supports an important non-profit, adds needed housing, and most importantly > it heads off far riskier alternatives. Below I’ve laid out the top concerns > I’ve heard and why I believe this deal is the right move for our town. Happy > to have thoughtful discourse and welcome open-minds to the conversation. > > As you read on, I ask that you think of a phrase often used in the non-profit > world: > > Things happen to you, for you, or because of you. > > As a community, if we want to move our missions forward and take advantage of > this opportunity, we need to take proactive steps to pounce on this > opportunity and make it happen because of us. No one is going to step in and > do this work for us. And, if left to chance, alternative outcomes are likely > to, happen to us, and they likely won't be nearly as good as what I believe > the Nature Link project achieves. > > Top Reasons to Support the Nature Link Project > > +Conservation at scale: 77 acres of ecologically valuable land will be > permanently protected from future development, preserving forests, wetlands, > and trail systems for generations. This is the largest undeveloped, > forested, and unprotected area in Lincoln. > > +Secures Farrington's future: This deal stabilizes a non-profit with a > mission to connect under-resourced youth with nature, allowing them to > continue their work and stay in Lincoln. > > +Adds relatively affordable homes: 20 modest homes (replacing 3 existing, 17 > net) provide much-needed "missing middle" housing stock, helping young > families and downsizing seniors stay in Lincoln. > > +Miles of trails will be made permanently available to all Lincoln residents > through the conservation land carved out by this deal. > > +Supports 40B compliance: Some units will be income-restricted, helping the > town meet its Chapter 40B obligations. > > +Avoids Dover Amendment-risk: By putting Farrington into conservation and > giving Farrington financial stability, we substantially reduce the looming > risk of institutional-scale development on that land under the Dover > Amendment. > > +What’s good enough for Cambridge is good for us: While "no septic system" > is better than any septic system, the City of Cambridge has the most to lose > here given they depend on the clean watershed to protect the reservoir as > their water source - and they fully support this plan and are putting $800k > in to back it up. If the people drinking the water support this to mitigate > future risk, I think we should be aware of that future risk and support > mitigating it, too. > > +Realistic traffic impact: Estimated traffic increase is ~5-10%, a nominal > amount that doesn't warrant the concern. See further below for my analysis > on the numbers. > > +Transparent, enforceable plan: This is a tightly structured, multi-party > agreement with baked-in protections, approvals, and community oversight - not > an open-ended blank check to a developer. Farrington's land is put into > conservation through deeds and Conservation Restrictions (CRs), the developer > is locked into approved plans, and Farrington's use of the access road to > Page Rd expires upon any transfer of ownership so it can't be used in the > future by other parties. > > +As a direct neighbor to this project, I don’t take change lightly. I will > see and feel the impacts of 17 new homes more than most. It would be easy for > me to oppose any development next door. But I choose to support Nature Link > because I firmly believe it’s the best path forward for our community as a > whole. It’s a rare instance where the community as a whole gets something > positive: Farrington gets the funds to sustain its nature programs, Lincoln > gets permanently protected land and walking trails, a thoughtful developer > gets to build much-needed starter homes, and new families get a chance to > make Lincoln their home. I'm willing to support the greater good and, based > on recent discussions, believe most of my Page Rd neighbors do as well. > > No plan is perfect, and it’s okay to have questions and doubts. I’ve tried to > address the major concerns with facts and respectful reasoning further below. > Our town’s discourse can certainly get heated - but at the end of the day, I > think we all share the same love for Lincoln and want to see it thrive > without losing what makes it special. Nature Link is a compromise that > achieves that, by blending conservation and smart growth in a way that > enhances our community. > > I invite everyone to look at the official documents, ask hard questions, and > satisfy themselves on the details. From what I’ve seen, the more you dig, the > more this deal holds up as sensible and forward-looking. I’ll be voting Yes > at the Special Town Meeting on June 25, and I encourage my fellow residents > to consider doing the same. Let’s seize this opportunity to protect a > beautiful piece of Lincoln while also shaping a future we can be proud of - > one where our children and new neighbors can enjoy the same natural beauty > and community spirit that drew us all here in the first place. > > Thank you for reading, and I’m happy to discuss further with an open mind and > mutual respect. > > Joseph (and Jennifer) Kolchinsky at 83 Page Rd > > If you’d like to add your name in support of this perspective, please do so > by filling out this form. https://forms.gle/JFWdWUzbbdR9mUtC9 > > —---------------- > I pose the following questions further below. > Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction? > Q: Why can’t this be simpler if the focus is on conservation? > Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress? > Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry about > conservation? > Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town? > Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner? > Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options? > Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road? > Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later? > Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico? > Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we want for > conservation? > Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for? > Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the trails be open > to the public? > Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction? > > —---------------- > Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction? > A: There are economic, community, social, environmental, and utility benefits > for many parties. At first it felt overly complex, but as I dug in to learn > more I came to appreciate why this project involved each entity. It balances > many aligned interests, including mine as a Page Rd resident. > > See attached chart titled Parties to the Nature Link Project. > > <5a4592ab-dbf7-4464-97e6-5c081c75daed.png> > > —---------------- > Q: Why can’t this be simpler if the focus is on conservation? > A: At first glance, a straightforward deal - funding Farrington in exchange > for conservation - might seem like the easiest path. But the key to > understanding this proposal is recognizing Farrington’s need for access to > Page Road (see image attached). Their current exit onto Route 2 is > suboptimal, and without Page Road access, Farrington has made clear they are > not interested in this deal. > > <2b35f295-689f-45b6-b2d8-6a2e3e8b54df.png> > See attached image titled Farrington Access Road which highlights the access > road in orange. > > Farrington could sell their land outright for a higher price and relocate > outside of Lincoln. The Dover Amendment allows religious or educational > institutions who might buy the to override zoning - leaving us without say on > future use. The Panettas will move on and sell to someone else, likely > removing any chance for community-driven benefit. What brings the cost down > - and opens the door to permanent conservation - is Farrington’s willingness > to stay in exchange for a second egress in combination with a developer’s > interest in purchasing Panetta’s land. > > The only viable access to Page Road is through the Panetta property. The > Panettas are willing to sell, but understandably, they want a certain price > in exchange, which they’ve set at $3.3M. Multiple developers engaged in > negotiation, but only Civico was willing to pay the price the Panettas set > and participate in the process. While the Panettas could sell independently, > this is a rare chance for the community to tie their sale to a broader > community outcome: conservation, housing, and infrastructure, all in one. > > Yes, other options may exist, but this opportunity has a shelf life. If the > deal fails, each party will do what’s best for them. Farrington may sell, > opening the door to higher-impact development under the Dover Amendment. The > Panettas may move on, taking the chance for a coordinated solution with them. > > Nature Link is a community-forged compromise: it protects open space, > supports mixed-income housing, sustains a local nonprofit, and gives Lincoln > control over what happens next. > > —---------------- > Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress? > A: While Route 2 access is a challenge, it’s not the core issue for > Farrington. What they truly need - and have been consistent about - is access > to Page Road, not an upgrade to their current exit. > > Even with improvements to Rt 2, Farrington is not willing to stay in Lincoln > without Page Road access. Without it, they’ve indicated they would likely > sell the land - potentially for $7-$10M - and relocate elsewhere. > > That outcome puts the community at risk of a Dover Amendment-related sale, > where a religious or educational institution could bypass local zoning. Such > a development could bring greater environmental disruption, threaten > watershed protections, and increase Page Road traffic as drivers to a future > school or place of worship avoid Rt 2’s Bedford Rd U-turn and instead cut > through Trapelo and Page. > > —---------------- > Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry about > conservation? > A: It’s a good question - but wetlands protection and Conservation > Restrictions (CRs) are not the same, especially in scope, permanence, and > enforceability. > > Wetlands are regulated under state law (like the Massachusetts Wetlands > Protection Act), which limits building near sensitive areas. But these > protections are regulatory, not permanent. Wetland boundaries can shift, and > permits can still be granted - especially if an applicant shows limited > impact. And laws can be amended over time, which means protections can weaken. > > A Conservation Restriction is different. It’s a legal agreement tied to the > deed, permanently limiting how the land can be used - regardless of ownership > or zoning changes. It can’t be undone without approval from the state and the > CR holder. > > Bottom line: wetlands protection controls what’s allowed today while a > Conservation Restriction locks in protections forever - ensuring the land > stays open, natural, and undeveloped. If the goal is long-term preservation, > CRs are the only real guarantee and are worth finding compromise to achieve. > > —---------------- > Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town? > A: No. Some concerns have been raised about “special treatment” or bypassing > town process - but this project is following the exact path laid out in > Lincoln’s zoning bylaws, specifically through the North Lincoln Overlay > District, which was created by Town Meeting in 1986 (and approved with ⅔ > vote) and subsequently approved by the Massachusetts Attorney General at the > time. > > The overlay was designed to encourage creative, controlled development in > North Lincoln, where growth potential existed but required thoughtful > planning. Over the years, the town has added other overlays for wetlands, > wireless infrastructure, and solar development - tools created to address > specific needs through structured, public processes. > > The North Lincoln Overlay specifically allows developers to propose > site-specific plans that undergo: > > Rigorous review by the Planning Board, environmental and traffic studies, > municipal impact analysis, and approval by a ⅔ vote at a Special Town Meeting. > > I recently read the full application requirements for the North Lincoln > Overlay District in the Town of Lincoln’s Zoning Bylaws - it spans ten pages > starting on Page 32 (Section 12.5). The process includes detailed plans, > public presentations, and ongoing oversight. Once approved by ⅔ super > majority at the Town Meeting on June 25, any future changes require Planning > Board approval. > > This isn’t a shortcut - if anything, it’s a high bar. The overlay was built > to allow for public benefit through structured development, and that’s > exactly how it’s being used here: to lock in conservation protections, > establish trail access, and cap development at 20 homes with pre-approved > designs. The developer cannot expand or change the plan without full review > and approval. > > And crucially, this process protects us from the Dover Amendment, which could > otherwise allow large, zoning-exempt institutions to develop this land. By > using the overlay to structure a deal that places the majority of the land > under conservation restrictions, we retain control and align the outcome with > Lincoln’s values. > > —---------------- > Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner? > A: It’s important to remember that this began as a private transaction > between private parties. The Town’s involvement is limited to zoning approval > - specifically, the creation of the North Lincoln Planned Development > District and the issuance of a Special Permit. Until that stage, the private > entities are legally entitled to work through the details independently. > > The zoning bylaws outline what happens next. Once the Planning Board approves > the application, the Town is required to host a Special Town Meeting and send > a town-wide mailing at least 14 days in advance: > > “In addition to the notices required by law, a description of the preliminary > plan and notice of such hearing, including reduced reproductions of > architectural renderings and of the site plan, all in form approved by the > Planning Board, shall be mailed to each postal patron in the Town at least 14 > days prior to such hearing.” > > Until that notification window, no formal public outreach is required. > However, recognizing the complexity and potential community interest, the > Rural Land Foundation began a public communications effort more than two > months in advance of the Town Meeting. They’ve since hosted (or scheduled) a > dozen in-person and virtual sessions to inform and engage residents. > > This goes well beyond what is required, and includes shared recordings and > transparent Q&A sessions. In short, while the formal process hasn’t fully > kicked in yet, the project sponsors have made a concerted and good-faith > effort to inform the community well ahead of schedule. > > —---------------- > Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options? > A: It’s not the responsibility of private citizens to present multiple > alternatives. Under the North Lincoln Overlay District, anyone can propose a > project, meet the requirements, and seek approval at Town Meeting. If voters > want other options, they’re free to pursue them - but that doesn’t mean this > proposal isn’t valid. > > That said, this deal has a shelf life. The Panettas and Farrington are ready > to move forward - and they don’t have the luxury of waiting. If this falls > through, they’ll act in their own interests, which likely means no > conservation, no housing diversity, and a missed opportunity to shape the > outcome ourselves. > > Farrington needs financial stability and will likely seek a buyer. A sale in > the $7-$10M range is feasible - especially for a Dover-exempt institution - > but much harder for the town to match. Today’s deal costs far less and offers > real protections - if we’re willing to meet in the middle. > > —---------------- > Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road? > A: Seventeen net-new housing units will add traffic, but I believe the impact > will be modest. With three homes already on the property, the net change is > 17 homes. Traffic studies estimate each unit generates 8-10 vehicle trips per > day (vpd) - about 170 vpd total. Page Road (with its 100 homes and convenient > cut through from Trapelo to Rt 2) likely handles over 2,000 vpd today, so > this is only a 5-10% increase. With that said, I have two little kids and so > wish they could be biking on Page Rd safely and hesitate to allow them to do > that already, so I understand the concern and still believe this is an > appropriate increase given the value of the rest of the project. > > And consider the alternative: if this deal falls through, we could face a > Dover Amendment-related development on Farrington land, like a religious or > educational campus. That kind of use could generate far more traffic, > especially as large volumes of cars, likely at peak times, try to access the > property via Trapelo > Page > Rt 2. If that happens I will for sure regret > that we didn’t find a way to accept this deal. > > —---------------- > Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later? > A: It may seem counterintuitive, but building 17 net new homes now actually > reduces long-term development risk - while permanently protecting more of > Lincoln’s rural character. > > While the current zoning allows only three homes on the Panetta property, > there are no conservation protections on Farrington’s land. Lincoln has > already identified this as the largest unprotected forest block in town and > placed it high in its priority list per the Open Space and Recreation Plan in > 2017. Without action, Farrington could sell, and the land could be > redeveloped under the Dover Amendment, which allows religious and educational > institutions to bypass zoning. If you're unsure what this could look like in > our neighborhood, look at this temple in Belmont or read this analysis on its > impact to Massachusetts towns/cities. > > A deeded conservation restriction is our only permanent safeguard. > > Nature Link proposes 20 total homes - including 17 new units - on already > cleared land, while protecting over 77 acres (65 from Farrington and 12 from > Panetta). Only about one acre is used for septic, in exchange for > safeguarding forests, wetlands, and trails forever. > > And this isn’t just conservation - it also provides “missing middle” housing, > the kind Lincoln lacks. It gives young families and downsizing seniors a way > to stay in Lincoln - in-line with Lincoln’s character and community-oriented > feel. > > —---------------- > Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico? > A: Healthy skepticism is important - but so is acknowledging the goodwill, > oversight, and enforceable structure that shape this proposal. > > Civico has worked closely with the Rural Land Foundation, the Panetta family, > and Farrington to navigate a complex, multi-party agreement. Bringing a > project like this together isn’t simple - and it doesn’t happen without > collaboration and transparency. > > More importantly, this deal isn’t based on trust alone. It will be codified > through zoning bylaws, conservation restrictions, and developer agreements. > The North Lincoln Overlay District locks in the number of homes, layout, and > land preservation. Any changes would require coming back to the Town for > approval. > > And with Lincoln’s track record of detailed Planning Board and Conservation > Commission review, every septic line, drainage system, and house footprint > will be scrutinized. We're not handing over control - we're managing it with > oversight and legally binding plans. > > —---------------- > Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we want for > conservation? > A: Because real, lasting conservation often requires balancing social good > with economic sustainability - and that means welcoming partners who can make > the math work. > > Civico is a for-profit company, yes - but in this project, they’re also a > financial enabler of conservation and housing outcomes the town values. The > Panetta family is asking $3.3M for their land. If the community could raise > that ourselves - and fund the access road to Page Road - we wouldn’t need > Civico. But if we can't, we need a partner who can. > > Civico is willing to put up the $3.3M in exchange for the ability to develop > housing under the North Lincoln Overlay District. They cannot do that under > current zoning, which is why the offer of one acre for septic, and the > potential overlay designation are essential to making the deal viable. In > return, we gain: > > +A permanent conservation restriction protecting 75+ acres and providing > public trails, > +17 new mixed-income housing units for families and downsizing seniors, > +and a path forward that keeps Farrington on its land, doing its mission. > > Most major conservation deals over the last 60 years have included a > development component. That’s because conservation doesn't fund itself - > unless the community pays, it often needs economic activity to subsidize it. > In this case, the housing helps create the opportunity for the land > protection. > > Even the use of CPC funds reflects this blend: these funds can only support > open space, affordable housing, and historic preservation. In this case the > CPA funds will be directed for only the land conservation portion of this > project with 77 acres conserved, however the town will also get 3 > income-restricted homes that will be fully funded by the Developer. > > The result isn’t pure profit - it’s shared benefit. Conservation, housing, > and community values, aligned through a partnership that makes it possible. > > —---------------- > Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for? > A: The 20 planned homes are designed as “starter homes” by Lincoln standards > - smaller, more modest, and more accessible than typical multi-million-dollar > properties. Three units will be designated income-restricted at 80% of > Average Median Income (AMI); the rest aim to serve middle-income buyers: > young families priced out of town and seniors looking to downsize. > > Lincoln’s own housing plan identifies this missing middle - condos, > townhomes, and smaller homes for non-luxury buyers - as a critical gap. > Nature Link helps close that gap with smaller lots and efficient design, > offering options between luxury builds and deed-restricted affordable housing. > > These homes won’t be affordable in every sense, but they are far more > attainable than what’s currently being built in the town. Three units will > count toward our 10% 40B requirement, and the rest support a diverse, > sustainable community. > > Bottom line: this brings in new neighbors who enrich our town, instead of > limiting access to only the highest bidder. That’s a win for Lincoln’s values > of inclusion and community. > > —---------------- > Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the trails be open > to the public? > A: Yes. A key reason I support this project is the lasting protection it > gives land that might otherwise be developed. The deal puts permanent > Conservation Restrictions on 65 acres of Farrington and 12 acres of Panetta > land. These legally binding agreements, held by the Land Trust or Town, > prohibit future development - permanently. > > Farrington will retain ownership but will be limited to educational and > low-impact uses. If they ever sell, Page Road access is removed, preventing > future owners from intensifying use. The City of Cambridge is also investing > in this project to protect its watershed - clear evidence that this plan > aligns with environmental goals. Only one acre is used for septic, and all > construction must meet state, local, and Lincoln’s all-electric building > codes - likely an improvement over the existing homes codes, requiring them > to be all electric, which is likely an improvement on the existing homes on > the property. > > This plan also opens access to previously private land. A 1.5-mile public > trail will extend through the property and connect to the Osborne > Conservation Area and out to Page Road. As an abutter, I’m glad neighbors can > enjoy this space. Trail and land access will be open to all Lincoln > residents, not just the new homeowners. > > All protections - CRs, trail access, septic boundaries - will be detailed in > the Town Meeting warrant. If anything is unclear, we should demand > clarification before voting. But from what I’ve seen, the deal is clear: > conserve land, open trails, allow minimal development. > > —---------------- > Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction? > A: This may be the most important question. If we reject this deal, we must > be clear-eyed about what happens next. Farrington, who will be committing 65 > acres to conservation, is exploring sustainable ways to continue its mission > amid financial constraints. Without this funding, they could shut down or > sell. While some hope for an all-conservation rescue, it’s speculative and > far more expensive. > > The risk I don’t enjoy thinking about is one where the land gets sold to an > entity that invokes the Dover Amendment - a religious or educational use that > can bypass local zoning. Picture dorms, a large school, or a church complex > with little Town oversight. Open space? Gone. Conservation? Gone. The public > values we’re trying to preserve - trails, ecology, housing - would be at > greater risk. See further above > > We’d lose control. And ironically, those opposing development now might face > more disruptive development later - on worse terms, with fewer benefits. > > Nature Link is a proactive, community-crafted solution. It gives Farrington > long-term viability, preserves land, adds modest housing we shape, and avoids > the Dover Amendment risk. And it’s backed by the Rural Land Foundation, > Farrington, the Panetta family, Civico, the City of Cambridge, and many > individuals I’ve spoken with. Now is the time to bring it home with the > needed ⅔ supermajority vote at the Special Town Meeting on June 25. > > Doing nothing isn’t preservation - it’s gambling. And the odds aren’t in > Lincoln’s favor if we go that route. > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
