Do we have a McLean facility on Bypass Rd?
Sent from my iPad 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:
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 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). 2) Again, local zoning laws are still in effect. Towns may apply reasonable regulations regarding: Bulk and height of structures Yard sizes Lot area Setbacks Open space requirements Parking requirements 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
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.
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. 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.
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 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
|
