And how much do the balance sell for? Are they addressing the “missing middle” we have committed to addressing? Those homes would be $750,00 or less.
> On May 30, 2025, at 2:53 PM, Don Seltzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > To provide a bit more detail on the housing, the three affordable 3 Bedroom > houses will, under HUD rules, sell for about $300K to households making under > $132K. > > Don Seltzer > > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:21 AM Joseph Kolchinsky > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Fantastic point! I updated the Civico row to indicate that they are also >> "Getting Revenue from sale of 20 Mixed-Income Housing Units". Now it >> matches properly. Updated on the live doc >> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d> and attached here as well. >> >> This table isn't meant to indicate that anyone is being generous - simply >> that every part is participating in an exchange of some kind. It helps to >> visualize so that we can all see who is motivated by what. >> >> <Screenshot 2025-05-29 at 9.59.48 PM.png> >> >> >> Joseph Kolchinsky >> 978-604-0827 >> >> >> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 6:30 PM, Terry Kay Epperson >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Concerning the table, I would argue that Civico is not ‘giving’ the 20 >>> units. I think that should belong to the ‘getting’ column, since they will >>> be selling these at profit. >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> Terry Kay >>> >>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:57 PM Joseph Kolchinsky >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> I agree, the moment the town is being asked to participate, transparency >>>> is required. This table I built makes it really straight forward to >>>> answer the question of "to whose gain". I put the below table together >>>> with the help of RLF and Farrington to ensure accuracy. I continue to >>>> update it in this document on page 4 here. >>>> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d> >>>> >>>> If there continues to be doubts as to the validity of this information, >>>> I'd love to hear what kind of confirmation one needs. If I can, I'll dig. >>>> I'm a curious person and really enjoy the pursuit of clarity. >>>> >>>> Joey >>>> >>>> <Screenshot 2025-05-29 at 10.42.42 AM.png> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:20 AM, Sara Mattes <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> To whose gain? >>>>> It is clear that CIVICO, Farrington, Panettas and RLF will, per >>>>> statements by RLF members. >>>>> It is not clear the value of the public investment of significant public >>>>> $$ and significant zoning bylaw changes. >>>>> That case needs to be clearly made. >>>>> >>>>> This is no longer a private transaction, but a public one, so the public >>>>> has a right and responsibility to ask for clarity. >>>>> These questions do not reflect conspiracy theories but responsible >>>>> democratic engagement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>>> On May 29, 2025, at 9:13 AM, John Mendelson <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> 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] >>>>>> <mailto:[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. These are existing funds and property >>>>>>> taxes will not go up to fund the project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <IMG_4404.png> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> To: Lincoln Talk <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 [email protected]. >>>>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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. >
-- 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.
