I believe the town lost on SJC appeal in regards to the McLean decision which cost us close to $50,000 and years of town government effort to litigate and respond according to Alice’s article at the time:
https://lincolnsquirrel.com/2019/09/sjc-rules-against-town- in-mclean-hospital-case/ Plus our loss probably added an additional precedent to future plaintiffs that feel that they are developing under the Dover amendment. Won’t try to parse if that is the case or not here. Reminder all to subscribe to the Squirrel if you don’t already! On Thursday, May 29, 2025, Sara Mattes <[email protected]> wrote: > The town has been able to deal with Dover challenges in the past. > Grace Chapel once entertained a move to Lincoln. > But when faced with the potential of our zoning restrictions that would > apply and our reputation for aggressively protecting wetlands, they found > another location. > We had another potential church that was contemplating a purchase in N > Lincoln, but again, like Grace Chapel, chose to go elsewhere. > More recently, the Teddy Bear Club chose Lincoln, but designed to meet > Lincoln’s criteria. > I suspect many do not even know where it is. > And, McLean hospital lost a court case in an attempt to bring Dover into > play to locate a residential program here. > > An institution, invoking Dover, to construct a large facility on the > Farrington property, would not have an impact on the town if things remain > as they are as access and egress to the property is limited to Rt. 2. > > No change to the status quo would almost certainly not lead to the threat > of a Dover facilitated development. > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 29, 2025, at 7:33 PM, ٍSarah Postlethwait <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Margaret- please reread the thread. No one is claiming this proposed > development is a Dover Amendment project. It is not, and hopefully the > general public recognizes that, as well. > > Joey- > This is not an argument for or against the proposed development. I am just > begging for this fear mongering rhetoric to stop. > There are plenty of reasonable arguments both for and against this > proposed development that we do not need to use the Dover Amendment in the > same way that 40b has been used to push previous developments. > > To clarify since you were selective in the info provided in your reply: > > 1) Yes the town of Lincoln has stricter wetland protections than the state > level- but *the state level wetland protection act has not only a 25’ > “no-disturb zone”, it also has a 100 foot buffer that would require > anything within that buffer zone to receive approval from Lincoln’s > conservation Commission. * > (Screenshot from Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions). > [image: IMG_4451.jpeg] > 2) Again, local zoning laws are still in effect. > > Towns may apply *reasonable regulations* regarding: > > 1. > > *Bulk and height of structures* > 2. > > *Yard sizes* > 3. > > *Lot area* > 4. > > *Setbacks* > 5. > > *Open space requirements* > 6. > > *Parking requirements* > 7. > > *Building coverage (how much of the lot is covered by buildings)* > > These regulations must be: > > - > > *Uniformly applied* (i.e., not just imposed on the > religious/educational use) > - > > *Reasonable* and not so restrictive as to make the exempt use > practically impossible > > If you’re concerned our local zoning bylaws are not protective enough, > suggest an amendment to the planning board. But I trust that our planning > boards of the past have taken into account the Dover Amendment (it is > included in the text of the zoning bylaws, so that’s a safe assumption), > and have made adequate and enforceable protections within our zoning > bylaws. > > 3) Cambridge has a long history of spending money to protect its > watershed, and has a long history with the RLF- offering money now does not > mean it knows of some looming risk of a gargantuan megachurch moving in > next door, nor does it imply that it supports this development and doesn’t > see a risk in acre wide septic system (enough for 80 bedrooms) to be > installed right next to its watershed. > > 4) What you’re failing to incorporate in your irrational fear of the Dover > Amendment is that it has been publicly stated that Farrington would want to > sell their property for $7-10M. That sale price alone will significantly > limit the number of parties that would be able to afford to purchase the > lot, not to mention the development costs on top of it (heck even CIVICO is > claiming only a 3M investment in land makes sense for this project where > they are selling over 21 million dollars worth of homes.) > > By the way you’re making it seem, every single resident in Lincoln should > fear a Dover Amendment take over in their back yard. And to be frank, it’s > more likely to happen on a reasonably priced 2 acre lot that makes up the > vast majority of Lincoln’s zoning, than it is to happen on an overpriced 75 > acre lot. > > Please please please make your reasonable and rational points about why > you support the development. But let’s not push an unsubstantiated claim > that an organization is going to swoop in and buy it up and ignore all > zoning and environmental regulations, simply because the Dover amendment > lets them. It’s just not true. > > Sarah Postlethwait > > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 4:47 PM Margaret Olson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This is not a Dover Amendment project: the Dover Amendment covers >> religious and educational uses and some agricultural uses. >> >> It is true that since Lincoln's zoning is restrictive large lots tend to >> be unusually attractive to schools and other Dover uses, and you could >> argue that the Farrington property is at risk of a Dover development if the >> RLF/Farrington proposal falls apart. I'm not sure I'd make that argument, >> but it's not an unreasonable point of view. Dover uses are by-right, so >> although site plan review and all of the other usual reviews would apply >> the town would not be able to stop a Dover development. The big downside to >> Dover uses from this taxpayer's point of view is that most of them are tax >> exempt. >> >> Margaret >> >> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 3:02 PM ٍSarah Postlethwait <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The multiple uses of this little known “Dover Amendment” is verging on >>> fear mongering, and I think it’s important to clarify for the 99% of >>> residents who know nothing about this zoning regulation. >>> >>> >>> While the Dover Amendment does indeed provide some exemptions from >>> certain zoning restrictions for religious and educational institutions, it >>> does not grant carte blanche zoning exemptions to bypass all local >>> oversight or environmental regulations. >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Environmental Protections Still Apply: >>> Institutions operating under the Dover Amendment are still subject >>> to state and federal environmental regulations, including those governing >>> wetlands, stormwater management, and watershed protection. Local >>> conservation commissions and the Massachusetts Department of >>> Environmental >>> Protection continue to have jurisdiction over developments that could >>> impact environmentally sensitive areas. The claim that a Dover-compliant >>> development would automatically lead to “greater environmental >>> disruption” >>> ignores these critical regulatory frameworks. >>> >>> >>> 2. >>> >>> Zoning Oversight Still Exists Under Dover: >>> The Dover Amendment protects uses—not the form of the building or >>> site layout. (In other words, allowing a school or religious institution >>> to >>> be built in a residential zone) *Towns still retain authority over >>> aspects like building height, setbacks, parking, lighting, and noise.* >>> The idea that a Dover-exempt entity could develop a property with no >>> regard >>> to community character or infrastructure has no credibility. >>> >>> This is already a contentious subject, there really is no need to use >>> scare tactics to try to convince people to vote for this development. >>> >>> Sarah Postlethwait >>> >>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:56 PM Joseph Kolchinsky < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> *There’s plenty not to love about this project, even for those of us >>>> who ultimately support it.* So in the spirit of transparency flowing >>>> both ways, I’ll share a few personal reservations: >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> *I don’t love the idea of public trails so close to my home.* We already >>>> have the occasional person wander onto our property from informal trail >>>> use. >>>> - >>>> >>>> *I don’t love the increase in Page Rd traffic,* even if estimates >>>> suggest >>>> it’s nominal. >>>> - >>>> >>>> *I don’t love donating $2,500 to support this project, or the >>>> pressure on others to raise nearly $850k.* >>>> - >>>> >>>> *I don’t love allocating $500k in RLF funding and $950k in CPC >>>> funds* that could support other community initiatives. >>>> - >>>> >>>> *I really don’t love that neighbors near the Panetta land will bear >>>> the brunt of the **development *because I’d feel the same way if it >>>> were abutting my property. >>>> - >>>> >>>> *I don’t love the years of construction traffic we’ll see on our >>>> road.* >>>> >>>> *But there’s one thing I like even less: the uncertainty of the status >>>> quo.* >>>> >>>> The land is not protected. There are no deed restrictions. The Dover >>>> Amendment >>>> allows institutions to override zoning - and that could introduce more >>>> density, >>>> more traffic, and more permanent impact across the community than this >>>> project. >>>> *And none of us would have a say in that outcome.* >>>> >>>> >>>> *This project is full of compromises. But it also delivers big, >>>> tangible gains:* >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> *77 Acres (90% of the land) under permanent Conservation >>>> Restriction - *an enormous environmental win >>>> - >>>> >>>> *Public trail access* >>>> - >>>> >>>> *20 modest housing units, diversifying Lincoln’s stock* >>>> - >>>> >>>> *A path to keep a local nonprofit rooted in town* >>>> - >>>> >>>> *And lasting confidence that it will all stay that way for a long >>>> time to come.* >>>> >>>> *I don’t expect everyone to come to the same conclusion. But for me, >>>> the balance of risk and reward makes this deal worth supporting.* And >>>> that’s >>>> not because I’m thrilled about every piece of it - but because I’ve come >>>> to believe that it’s the best realistic path to long-term protection, local >>>> control, and shared benefit. >>>> >>>> Joey >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:17 PM, Karla Gravis <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I’m not sure what of the below qualifies as a “conspiracy theory”. I’m >>>>> laying out a perspective based on facts which are absent from the official >>>>> presentations. Please, if there is evidence that any asset provided by the >>>>> sponsors openly states that Civico is getting valuable land from >>>>> Farrington >>>>> for housing, by all means share. All the official documentation available >>>>> that I have seen does not show that. >>>>> >>>>> My perspective also happens to be different than the one presented by >>>>> the sponsors, who obviously want this project to go through. >>>>> Farrington abutters have posted on this forum that this is a >>>>> “complex” deal and that there are “gives and takes”, and that this makes >>>>> sense as an overall deal. We must also understand that Farrington >>>>> abutters have an incentive for this deal to go through, since it protects >>>>> their own backyards from getting built on (while it’s the Panetta >>>>> abutters getting all the buildout next to them). >>>>> >>>>> I’ll be very open that my incentive is not to have tax dollars >>>>> subsidize a developer. Some may see it as “gives and takes”, I see it as >>>>> Civico once again benefiting from the town’s money. People are welcome to >>>>> take it or leave it, but I think we owe the town to educate ourselves on >>>>> all the aspects and motivations behind this “complex” deal. >>>>> >>>>> However, there is no need to cast aspersions instead of engaging in >>>>> the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Karla >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: John Mendelson <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Thu, May 29, 2025 at 9:13 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln is subsidizing Civico (again) >>>>> To: LincolnTalk <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One person's conspiracy theory is another person's ideal >>>>> public/private partnership where 1+1=3. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:46 AM Karla Gravis <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> Our CPC tax dollars are actually being used to maximize Civico’s >>>>>> profits. >>>>>> >>>>>> Civico is buying the Panetta land at assessed value for its current >>>>>> best use, which is the buildout of 3 single family homes. Not only is >>>>>> this >>>>>> deal letting them build at a much higher density through revised zoning >>>>>> at >>>>>> 20 houses, they are also *getting additional land that currently >>>>>> belongs to Farrington* to: 1) build more housing units, and 2) place >>>>>> a septic system. This scheme *allows Civico to build many more units* >>>>>> than it would be otherwise possible. Andrew Consigli at the PB meeting on >>>>>> Tuesday conceded this point. >>>>>> >>>>>> While Civico is “giving up” 12 acres of Panetta land for >>>>>> conservation, which will be deeded to the City of Cambridge, this land is >>>>>> excess non-buildable wetlands of no economic value (see image below). In >>>>>> essence, Civico is acquiring *buildable* land, which they are >>>>>> utilizing to increase their profit, in return for *unbuildable* >>>>>> land. None of this would obviously be possible if it wasn't for the fact >>>>>> that Lincoln is compensating Farrington, which is the party that is >>>>>> ceding >>>>>> these valuable acres. It is absolutely fair to say that the town of >>>>>> *Lincoln >>>>>> is subsidizing Civico*, albeit indirectly, if you want in a "hidden" >>>>>> way. >>>>>> >>>>>> I disagree that this has been presented transparently. None of the >>>>>> documentation available online mentions the transfer of land to Civico >>>>>> for >>>>>> housing. The documentation and presentations (here >>>>>> <https://lincolnconservation.org/the-nature-link-project/>) >>>>>> explicitly state that these are two separate transactions, that is, >>>>>> Lincoln >>>>>> taxpayer dollars are not benefitting Civico. A prime example is this >>>>>> FAQ <https://www.lincolntown.org/1580/2025-Special-Town-Meeting> item >>>>>> from the town's website to understand this dynamic at play. Is the below >>>>>> factually correct? Yes. Does it hide the fact that Civico is getting land >>>>>> from Farrington, that they wouldn't otherwise have access to if CPA >>>>>> dollars >>>>>> were not at play? Also yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is any town funding going to the housing developer? >>>>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/1580/2025-Special-Town-Meeting#> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *No!* Town CPA funds will be used for land conservation, not >>>>>> housing. The developer will pay market value for the land for the >>>>>> neighborhood. As a side note, in 2025 the state is projected to provide >>>>>> a >>>>>> 20 - 25% match to our CPA funds. CPA funds are explicitly intended to >>>>>> fund >>>>>> in full or subsidize this type of project. T*hese are existing >>>>>> funds and property taxes will not go up to fund the project.* >>>>>> [image: IMG_4404.png] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>>>> *From:* Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *To:* Lincoln Talk <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2025 at 06:39:02 AM EDT >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [LincolnTalk] Supporting the Nature Link Project: A >>>>>>> Comprehensive Perspective from A Page Rd Abutter >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I received a number of follow up questions and synthesized them into >>>>>>> a few addition in the document. The live document can be found here: >>>>>>> https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The two new Q&As are printed below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joey >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Q: Why are town CPC funds being used instead of the developer >>>>>>> paying more?* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *A: *Think of this as a multi-party negotiation where each side is >>>>>>> acting in its own best interest. *Civico is contributing $3.3M - >>>>>>> the max they believe makes financial sense.* If the project were >>>>>>> more profitable, they’d likely offer more. *But they’ve judged the >>>>>>> risk/reward and capped their investment.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, *Rural Land Foundation (RLF) has been the >>>>>>> conservation-focused voice at the table* (which highly aligns with >>>>>>> the town’s interests), with no financial stake beyond conservation. >>>>>>> They’ve >>>>>>> already contributed $500K and secured significant private donations. >>>>>>> They >>>>>>> also negotiated to get Civico to give *12 acres into permanent >>>>>>> Conservation Restriction.* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Could a Town representative have negotiated more? Maybe.* But >>>>>>> that’s not how this deal was structured - and *we don’t get to >>>>>>> replay it.* The question now is whether we want to risk the entire >>>>>>> deal falling apart to test that theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *The $950K in CPC funds isn’t a gift to Civico - it’s an investment >>>>>>> in 77 acres of protected land*, 65 from Farrington and 12 from >>>>>>> Civico. *This land is prioritized in Lincoln’s 2017–2024 Open Space >>>>>>> & Recreation Plan.* If we don’t use CPC funds here, *they’ll be >>>>>>> used elsewhere because they’ve already been collected and set aside for >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> purpose of land conservation and development. *So the question is >>>>>>> whether we want to put the money here or elsewhere and given the value >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> conserving 77 acres of land I don’t think there’s a better place to put >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Q: Isn’t this just a backdoor way for taxpayer money to benefit >>>>>>> Civico?* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *A:* It’s completely fair to ask this. When public funds are >>>>>>> requested, *transparency and trust matter.* Let’s lay it out >>>>>>> plainly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Civico is paying *$3.3M in private funds* to purchase land directly >>>>>>> from the Panetta family. That land includes three existing home lots and >>>>>>> the ability to build up to 20 modest homes on already-cleared land. *No >>>>>>> public money is going to Civico.* That’s factually correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, here’s where the perception gets murky: the conservation >>>>>>> funding going to Farrington will, in part, *enable* a land swap >>>>>>> that results in Farrington giving Civico a one-acre septic easement and >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> acres of land for development and in return getting access to Page Road. >>>>>>> That trade allows Farrington to continue its mission and secure >>>>>>> conservation for 65 of their acres. *So yes - Civico benefits >>>>>>> indirectly. But that’s also how public-private partnerships work. *We >>>>>>> *balance capital investment, private gain, community support, and >>>>>>> public return*: in this case, 77 acres of permanently protected >>>>>>> land, a new public trail, support for a non-profit, and a >>>>>>> community-scale >>>>>>> housing project that the town needs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea that this is a “loophole” or an attempt to obscure the >>>>>>> facts assumes bad intent. *From all public documentation, forums, >>>>>>> and FAQs, the structure has been disclosed transparently.* It's >>>>>>> complex, but not hidden. The complexity is a big reason why I put this >>>>>>> document together. >>>>>>> Skepticism is healthy. But when public dollars are paired with >>>>>>> private investment, we should ask: *Are we getting a good deal?* In >>>>>>> this case, we secure conservation, trail access, watershed protection, >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> moderate housing, and even end up supporting a non-profit - all without >>>>>>> raising any taxes or requiring substantial compromise. *That’s a >>>>>>> balanced outcome worth serious consideration.* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>>> 978-604-0827 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 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 >>>>>>> <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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [image: 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [image: 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
-- 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.
