Re: [LincolnTalk] To whose gain?

Fri, 30 May 2025 21:10:34 -0700

So why are we contributing to a problem?
The argument was made that the proposed housing development was to serve “ the missing middle” and down- sizing seniors.
Who is it really for?
Sent from my iPad

On May 30, 2025, at 10:31 PM, Jennifer Saffran <[email protected]> wrote:

The median for new construction in the US is now 2,179 sf. That the price is so high is a function of this area, not what the “missing middle” purchaser can afford. 

On May 30, 2025, at 10:14 PM, Sara Mattes <[email protected]> wrote:

I got answer regarding the cost of 17 of the 20 units being proposed by CIVICO for the Panetta property.
The 1800 sq ft units will sell for $1mill, the larger ones will go for $2-3 mill.
The income required to afford the “starter” million dollar home is $225,000, with 20% down ($200,000) and a thirty year fixed rate at today’s rate.

Is this the “missing middle?"



On May 30, 2025, at 3:59 PM, Don Seltzer <[email protected]> wrote:

Sara,

Please do not ask me to do research for you. 
As I wrote, I was simply adding one detail to the picture.

Don

On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 3:01 PM Sara Mattes <[email protected]> wrote:
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]> 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 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]> 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]> 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.

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]> 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]> 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]> 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) explicitly state that these are two separate transactions, that is, Lincoln taxpayer dollars are not benefitting Civico. A prime example is this FAQ 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? 


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]>
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).  It's formatted for an easier read and contains a number of images, links, and references.  I will continue to update it with new questions and answers as additional conversation develops and more information becomes available.]

Hello neighbors. I live on Page Road and abut the Farrington land. Like some of you, I was skeptical of the Nature Link proposal at first. But after spending real time with the details, I now believe this is exactly the kind of thoughtful, balanced solution we need in Lincoln. It protects land, supports an important non-profit, adds needed housing, and most importantly it heads off far riskier alternatives. Below I’ve laid out the top concerns I’ve heard and why I believe this deal is the right move for our town.  Happy to have thoughtful discourse and welcome open-minds to the conversation.

As you read on, I ask that you think of a phrase often used in the non-profit world:

Things happen to you, for you, or because of you.

As a community, if we want to move our missions forward and take advantage of this opportunity, we need to take proactive steps to pounce on this opportunity and make it happen because of us.  No one is going to step in and do this work for us.  And, if left to chance, alternative outcomes are likely to, happen to us, and they likely won't be nearly as good as what I believe the Nature Link project achieves.

Top Reasons to Support the Nature Link Project

+Conservation at scale: 77 acres of ecologically valuable land will be permanently protected from future development, preserving forests, wetlands, and trail systems for generations.  This is the largest undeveloped, forested, and unprotected area in Lincoln.

+Secures Farrington's future: This deal stabilizes a non-profit with a mission to connect under-resourced youth with nature, allowing them to continue their work and stay in Lincoln.

+Adds relatively affordable homes: 20 modest homes (replacing 3 existing, 17 net) provide much-needed "missing middle" housing stock, helping young families and downsizing seniors stay in Lincoln.

+Miles of trails will be made permanently available to all Lincoln residents through the conservation land carved out by this deal.

+Supports 40B compliance: Some units will be income-restricted, helping the town meet its Chapter 40B obligations.

+Avoids Dover Amendment-risk: By putting Farrington into conservation and giving Farrington financial stability, we substantially reduce the looming risk of institutional-scale development on that land under the Dover Amendment.

+What’s good enough for Cambridge is good for us:  While "no septic system" is better than any septic system, the City of Cambridge has the most to lose here given they depend on the clean watershed to protect the reservoir as their water source - and they fully support this plan and are putting $800k in to back it up.  If the people drinking the water support this to mitigate future risk, I think we should be aware of that future risk and support mitigating it, too.

+Realistic traffic impact: Estimated traffic increase is ~5-10%, a nominal amount that doesn't warrant the concern.  See further below for my analysis on the numbers.

+Transparent, enforceable plan: This is a tightly structured, multi-party agreement with baked-in protections, approvals, and community oversight - not an open-ended blank check to a developer.  Farrington's land is put into conservation through deeds and Conservation Restrictions (CRs), the developer is locked into approved plans, and Farrington's use of the access road to Page Rd expires upon any transfer of ownership so it can't be used in the future by other parties.

+As a direct neighbor to this project, I don’t take change lightly. I will see and feel the impacts of 17 new homes more than most. It would be easy for me to oppose any development next door. But I choose to support Nature Link because I firmly believe it’s the best path forward for our community as a whole. It’s a rare instance where the community as a whole gets something positive: Farrington gets the funds to sustain its nature programs, Lincoln gets permanently protected land and walking trails, a thoughtful developer gets to build much-needed starter homes, and new families get a chance to make Lincoln their home.  I'm willing to support the greater good and, based on recent discussions, believe most of my Page Rd neighbors do as well.

No plan is perfect, and it’s okay to have questions and doubts. I’ve tried to address the major concerns with facts and respectful reasoning further below. Our town’s discourse can certainly get heated - but at the end of the day, I think we all share the same love for Lincoln and want to see it thrive without losing what makes it special. Nature Link is a compromise that achieves that, by blending conservation and smart growth in a way that enhances our community.

I invite everyone to look at the official documents, ask hard questions, and satisfy themselves on the details. From what I’ve seen, the more you dig, the more this deal holds up as sensible and forward-looking. I’ll be voting Yes at the Special Town Meeting on June 25, and I encourage my fellow residents to consider doing the same. Let’s seize this opportunity to protect a beautiful piece of Lincoln while also shaping a future we can be proud of - one where our children and new neighbors can enjoy the same natural beauty and community spirit that drew us all here in the first place.

Thank you for reading, and I’m happy to discuss further with an open mind and mutual respect.

Joseph (and Jennifer) Kolchinsky at 83 Page Rd

If you’d like to add your name in support of this perspective, please do so by filling out this form.  https:/ / forms. gle/ JFWdWUzbbdR9mUtC9

—----------------
I pose the following questions further below.
Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction?
Q: Why can’t this be simpler if the focus is on conservation?
Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress?
Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry about conservation?
Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town?
Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner?
Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options?
Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road?
Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later?
Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico?
Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we want for conservation?
Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for?
Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the trails be open to the public?
Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction?

—----------------
Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction?
A: There are economic, community, social, environmental, and utility benefits for many parties.  At first it felt overly complex, but as I dug in to learn more I came to appreciate why this project involved each entity.  It balances many aligned interests, including mine as a Page Rd resident.

See attached chart titled Parties to the Nature Link Project.

<5a4592ab-dbf7-4464-97e6-5c081c75daed.png>

—----------------
Q: Why can’t this be simpler if the focus is on conservation?
A: At first glance, a straightforward deal - funding Farrington in exchange for conservation - might seem like the easiest path. But the key to understanding this proposal is recognizing Farrington’s need for access to Page Road (see image attached). Their current exit onto Route 2 is suboptimal, and without Page Road access, Farrington has made clear they are not interested in this deal.

<2b35f295-689f-45b6-b2d8-6a2e3e8b54df.png>
See attached image titled Farrington Access Road which highlights the access road in orange.

Farrington could sell their land outright for a higher price and relocate outside of Lincoln. The Dover Amendment allows religious or educational institutions who might buy the to override zoning - leaving us without say on future use. The Panettas will move on and sell to someone else, likely removing any chance for community-driven benefit.  What brings the cost down - and opens the door to permanent conservation - is Farrington’s willingness to stay in exchange for a second egress in combination with a developer’s interest in purchasing Panetta’s land.

The only viable access to Page Road is through the Panetta property. The Panettas are willing to sell, but understandably, they want a certain price in exchange, which they’ve set at $3.3M. Multiple developers engaged in negotiation, but only Civico was willing to pay the price the Panettas set and participate in the process. While the Panettas could sell independently, this is a rare chance for the community to tie their sale to a broader community outcome: conservation, housing, and infrastructure, all in one.

Yes, other options may exist, but this opportunity has a shelf life. If the deal fails, each party will do what’s best for them. Farrington may sell, opening the door to higher-impact development under the Dover Amendment. The Panettas may move on, taking the chance for a coordinated solution with them.

Nature Link is a community-forged compromise: it protects open space, supports mixed-income housing, sustains a local nonprofit, and gives Lincoln control over what happens next.

—----------------
Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress?
A: While Route 2 access is a challenge, it’s not the core issue for Farrington. What they truly need - and have been consistent about - is access to Page Road, not an upgrade to their current exit.

Even with improvements to Rt 2, Farrington is not willing to stay in Lincoln without Page Road access. Without it, they’ve indicated they would likely sell the land - potentially for $7-$10M - and relocate elsewhere.

That outcome puts the community at risk of a Dover Amendment-related sale, where a religious or educational institution could bypass local zoning. Such a development could bring greater environmental disruption, threaten watershed protections, and increase Page Road traffic as drivers to a future school or place of worship avoid Rt 2’s Bedford Rd U-turn and instead cut through Trapelo and Page.

—----------------
Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry about conservation?
A: It’s a good question - but wetlands protection and Conservation Restrictions (CRs) are not the same, especially in scope, permanence, and enforceability.

Wetlands are regulated under state law (like the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act), which limits building near sensitive areas. But these protections are regulatory, not permanent. Wetland boundaries can shift, and permits can still be granted - especially if an applicant shows limited impact. And laws can be amended over time, which means protections can weaken.

A Conservation Restriction is different. It’s a legal agreement tied to the deed, permanently limiting how the land can be used - regardless of ownership or zoning changes. It can’t be undone without approval from the state and the CR holder.

Bottom line: wetlands protection controls what’s allowed today while a Conservation Restriction locks in protections forever - ensuring the land stays open, natural, and undeveloped. If the goal is long-term preservation, CRs are the only real guarantee and are worth finding compromise to achieve.

—----------------
Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town?
A: No. Some concerns have been raised about “special treatment” or bypassing town process - but this project is following the exact path laid out in Lincoln’s zoning bylaws, specifically through the North Lincoln Overlay District, which was created by Town Meeting in 1986 (and approved with ⅔ vote) and subsequently approved by the Massachusetts Attorney General at the time.

The overlay was designed to encourage creative, controlled development in North Lincoln, where growth potential existed but required thoughtful planning. Over the years, the town has added other overlays for wetlands, wireless infrastructure, and solar development - tools created to address specific needs through structured, public processes.

The North Lincoln Overlay specifically allows developers to propose site-specific plans that undergo:

Rigorous review by the Planning Board, environmental and traffic studies, municipal impact analysis, and approval by a ⅔ vote at a Special Town Meeting.

I recently read the full application requirements for the North Lincoln Overlay District in the Town of Lincoln’s Zoning Bylaws - it spans ten pages starting on Page 32 (Section 12.5). The process includes detailed plans, public presentations, and ongoing oversight. Once approved by ⅔ super majority at the Town Meeting on June 25, any future changes require Planning Board approval.

This isn’t a shortcut - if anything, it’s a high bar. The overlay was built to allow for public benefit through structured development, and that’s exactly how it’s being used here: to lock in conservation protections, establish trail access, and cap development at 20 homes with pre-approved designs. The developer cannot expand or change the plan without full review and approval.

And crucially, this process protects us from the Dover Amendment, which could otherwise allow large, zoning-exempt institutions to develop this land. By using the overlay to structure a deal that places the majority of the land under conservation restrictions, we retain control and align the outcome with Lincoln’s values.

—----------------
Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner?
A: It’s important to remember that this began as a private transaction between private parties. The Town’s involvement is limited to zoning approval - specifically, the creation of the North Lincoln Planned Development District and the issuance of a Special Permit. Until that stage, the private entities are legally entitled to work through the details independently.

The zoning bylaws outline what happens next. Once the Planning Board approves the application, the Town is required to host a Special Town Meeting and send a town-wide mailing at least 14 days in advance:

“In addition to the notices required by law, a description of the preliminary plan and notice of such hearing, including reduced reproductions of architectural renderings and of the site plan, all in form approved by the Planning Board, shall be mailed to each postal patron in the Town at least 14 days prior to such hearing.”

Until that notification window, no formal public outreach is required. However, recognizing the complexity and potential community interest, the Rural Land Foundation began a public communications effort more than two months in advance of the Town Meeting. They’ve since hosted (or scheduled) a dozen in-person and virtual sessions to inform and engage residents.

This goes well beyond what is required, and includes shared recordings and transparent Q&A sessions. In short, while the formal process hasn’t fully kicked in yet, the project sponsors have made a concerted and good-faith effort to inform the community well ahead of schedule.

—----------------
Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options?
A: It’s not the responsibility of private citizens to present multiple alternatives. Under the North Lincoln Overlay District, anyone can propose a project, meet the requirements, and seek approval at Town Meeting. If voters want other options, they’re free to pursue them - but that doesn’t mean this proposal isn’t valid.

That said, this deal has a shelf life. The Panettas and Farrington are ready to move forward - and they don’t have the luxury of waiting. If this falls through, they’ll act in their own interests, which likely means no conservation, no housing diversity, and a missed opportunity to shape the outcome ourselves.

Farrington needs financial stability and will likely seek a buyer. A sale in the $7-$10M range is feasible - especially for a Dover-exempt institution - but much harder for the town to match. Today’s deal costs far less and offers real protections - if we’re willing to meet in the middle.

—----------------
Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road?
A: Seventeen net-new housing units will add traffic, but I believe the impact will be modest. With three homes already on the property, the net change is 17 homes. Traffic studies estimate each unit generates 8-10 vehicle trips per day (vpd) - about 170 vpd total. Page Road (with its 100 homes and convenient cut through from Trapelo to Rt 2) likely handles over 2,000 vpd today, so this is only a 5-10% increase. With that said, I have two little kids and so wish they could be biking on Page Rd safely and hesitate to allow them to do that already, so I understand the concern and still believe this is an appropriate increase given the value of the rest of the project.

And consider the alternative: if this deal falls through, we could face a Dover Amendment-related development on Farrington land, like a religious or educational campus. That kind of use could generate far more traffic, especially as large volumes of cars, likely at peak times, try to access the property via Trapelo > Page > Rt 2.  If that happens I will for sure regret that we didn’t find a way to accept this deal.

—----------------
Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later?
A: It may seem counterintuitive, but building 17 net new homes now actually reduces long-term development risk - while permanently protecting more of Lincoln’s rural character.

While the current zoning allows only three homes on the Panetta property, there are no conservation protections on Farrington’s land. Lincoln has already identified this as the largest unprotected forest block in town and placed it high in its priority list per the Open Space and Recreation Plan in 2017. Without action, Farrington could sell, and the land could be redeveloped under the Dover Amendment, which allows religious and educational institutions to bypass zoning.  If you're unsure what this could look like in our neighborhood, look at this temple in Belmont or read this analysis on its impact to Massachusetts towns/cities.

A deeded conservation restriction is our only permanent safeguard.

Nature Link proposes 20 total homes - including 17 new units - on already cleared land, while protecting over 77 acres (65 from Farrington and 12 from Panetta). Only about one acre is used for septic, in exchange for safeguarding forests, wetlands, and trails forever.

And this isn’t just conservation - it also provides “missing middle” housing, the kind Lincoln lacks.  It gives young families and downsizing seniors a way to stay in Lincoln - in-line with Lincoln’s character and community-oriented feel.

—----------------
Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico?
A: Healthy skepticism is important - but so is acknowledging the goodwill, oversight, and enforceable structure that shape this proposal.

Civico has worked closely with the Rural Land Foundation, the Panetta family, and Farrington to navigate a complex, multi-party agreement. Bringing a project like this together isn’t simple - and it doesn’t happen without collaboration and transparency.

More importantly, this deal isn’t based on trust alone. It will be codified through zoning bylaws, conservation restrictions, and developer agreements. The North Lincoln Overlay District locks in the number of homes, layout, and land preservation. Any changes would require coming back to the Town for approval.

And with Lincoln’s track record of detailed Planning Board and Conservation Commission review, every septic line, drainage system, and house footprint will be scrutinized. We're not handing over control - we're managing it with oversight and legally binding plans.

—----------------
Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we want for conservation?
A: Because real, lasting conservation often requires balancing social good with economic sustainability - and that means welcoming partners who can make the math work.

Civico is a for-profit company, yes - but in this project, they’re also a financial enabler of conservation and housing outcomes the town values. The Panetta family is asking $3.3M for their land. If the community could raise that ourselves - and fund the access road to Page Road - we wouldn’t need Civico. But if we can't, we need a partner who can.

Civico is willing to put up the $3.3M in exchange for the ability to develop housing under the North Lincoln Overlay District. They cannot do that under current zoning, which is why the offer of one acre for septic, and the potential overlay designation are essential to making the deal viable. In return, we gain:

+A permanent conservation restriction protecting 75+ acres and providing public trails,
+17 new mixed-income housing units for families and downsizing seniors,
+and a path forward that keeps Farrington on its land, doing its mission.

Most major conservation deals over the last 60 years have included a development component. That’s because conservation doesn't fund itself - unless the community pays, it often needs economic activity to subsidize it. In this case, the housing helps create the opportunity for the land protection.

Even the use of CPC funds reflects this blend: these funds can only support open space, affordable housing, and historic preservation. In this case the CPA funds will be directed for only the land conservation portion of this project with 77 acres conserved, however the town will also get 3 income-restricted homes that will be fully funded by the Developer.

The result isn’t pure profit - it’s shared benefit. Conservation, housing, and community values, aligned through a partnership that makes it possible.

—----------------
Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for?
A: The 20 planned homes are designed as “starter homes” by Lincoln standards - smaller, more modest, and more accessible than typical multi-million-dollar properties. Three units will be designated income-restricted  at 80% of Average Median Income (AMI); the rest aim to serve middle-income buyers: young families priced out of town and seniors looking to downsize.

Lincoln’s own housing plan identifies this missing middle - condos, townhomes, and smaller homes for non-luxury buyers - as a critical gap. Nature Link helps close that gap with smaller lots and efficient design, offering options between luxury builds and deed-restricted affordable housing.

These homes won’t be affordable in every sense, but they are far more attainable than what’s currently being built in the town. Three units will count toward our 10% 40B requirement, and the rest support a diverse, sustainable community.

Bottom line: this brings in new neighbors who enrich our town, instead of limiting access to only the highest bidder. That’s a win for Lincoln’s values of inclusion and community.

—----------------
Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the trails be open to the public?
A: Yes. A key reason I support this project is the lasting protection it gives land that might otherwise be developed. The deal puts permanent Conservation Restrictions on 65 acres of Farrington and 12 acres of Panetta land. These legally binding agreements, held by the Land Trust or Town, prohibit future development - permanently.

Farrington will retain ownership but will be limited to educational and low-impact uses. If they ever sell, Page Road access is removed, preventing future owners from intensifying use. The City of Cambridge is also investing in this project to protect its watershed - clear evidence that this plan aligns with environmental goals. Only one acre is used for septic, and all construction must meet state, local, and Lincoln’s all-electric building codes - likely an improvement over the existing homes codes, requiring them to be all electric, which is likely an improvement on the existing homes on the property.

This plan also opens access to previously private land. A 1.5-mile public trail will extend  through the property and connect to the Osborne Conservation Area and out to Page Road. As an abutter, I’m glad neighbors can enjoy this space. Trail and land access will be open to all Lincoln residents, not just the new homeowners.

All protections - CRs, trail access, septic boundaries - will be detailed in the Town Meeting warrant. If anything is unclear, we should demand clarification before voting. But from what I’ve seen, the deal is clear: conserve land, open trails, allow minimal development.

—----------------
Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction?
A: This may be the most important question. If we reject this deal, we must be clear-eyed about what happens next. Farrington, who will be committing 65 acres to conservation, is exploring sustainable ways to continue its mission amid financial constraints. Without this funding, they could shut down or sell. While some hope for an all-conservation rescue, it’s speculative and far more expensive.

The risk I don’t enjoy thinking about is one where the land gets sold to an entity that invokes the Dover Amendment - a religious or educational use that can bypass local zoning. Picture dorms, a large school, or a church complex with little Town oversight. Open space? Gone. Conservation? Gone. The public values we’re trying to preserve - trails, ecology, housing - would be at greater risk.  See further above 

We’d lose control. And ironically, those opposing development now might face more disruptive development later - on worse terms, with fewer benefits.

Nature Link is a proactive, community-crafted solution. It gives Farrington long-term viability, preserves land, adds modest housing we shape, and avoids the Dover Amendment risk. And it’s backed by the Rural Land Foundation, Farrington, the Panetta family, Civico, the City of Cambridge, and many individuals I’ve spoken with.  Now is the time to bring it home with the needed ⅔ supermajority vote at the Special Town Meeting on June 25.

Doing nothing isn’t preservation - it’s gambling. And the odds aren’t in Lincoln’s favor if we go that route.

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.

--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.


--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].


--
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.

--
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.


-- 
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.

Reply via email to