I haven’t worked directly with Civico, but I completely agree that *any builder
who cuts corners deserves scrutiny*. I hope residents have voiced concerns
directly so the company understands it needs to improve. *If their reputation
suffers, the market will do what it does - either quality improves, or pricing
reflects the risk and their profits go down.*
On the broader concern about process and town involvement, I’ve addressed this
in more detail in the updated FAQ: https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d
*In short, this is a private transaction - not a town-led RFP or bidding
process.* The town wasn’t involved until now, when CPC funds are being
requested. *The private parties involved engaged with multiple developers* ,
but only one was willing to meet the $3.3M asking price for the Panetta
property. That’s not an endorsement - just a reflection of market dynamics.
*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 and Farrington has made
clear that they will in turn sell to the highest bidder, which puts their 75
acres at risk for something far worse for the town, local residents, and the
City of Cambridge who depends on the watershed for their water supply. *The
Nature Link is a community-forged compromise that makes sense to me the more I
unpack the layers.*
Your concerns are valid, and I hope that *public scrutiny and visibility will
lead to higher standards* this time around. But for me, *this project isn’t
about backing a developer - it’s about conserving 77 acres and creating new
housing options without taking on town debt.* If a developer can bring $3.3M to
the table to make that happen, I think it’s worth serious consideration.
Joey
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 9:43 PM, Jennifer Goodman < [email protected] >
wrote:
>
> Those of us who live at Oriole Landing know the shoddy workmanship and
> profit-driven, build-and-flip approach of CIVICO. We have been discussing
> this new project and are dismayed. Please consider other developers, and
> open it up to bid before giving CIVICO more town money and concessions to
> feed their greed. (Why does Lincoln love this particular developer so
> much?)
>
>
>> On May 28, 2025, at 10:41 AM, Ken Hurd < kenhurd@ keha. com (
>> [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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 ( http://www.keha.com/ )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 28, 2025, at 12:01 AM, Joseph Kolchinsky < joseph. kolchinsky@ gmail.
>>> com ( [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [This post in its entirety can be found here ( https:/ / docsend. com/ view/
>>> h33hxc7zvdstqa2d ( 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 (
>>> 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 Lincoln@ lincolntalk. org ( [email protected] )
>>> .
>>> Browse the archives at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/ private/
>>> lincoln/
>>> ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ ).
>>> Change your subscription settings at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/
>>> mailman/
>>> listinfo/ lincoln ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln ).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@ lincolntalk. org ( [email protected] )
>> .
>> Browse the archives at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/ private/
>> lincoln/
>> ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ ).
>> Change your subscription settings at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/
>> listinfo/ lincoln ( 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.
