Lincoln Community –
Since my first post last week, I’ve had dozens of conversations - on- and offline - about the Nature Link proposal. It’s been an unexpectedly productive process: people asked tough questions, shared knowledge, and flagged gaps in the narrative. That back-and-forth has strengthened my understanding and reinforced my belief that this project makes sense for Lincoln.
A few key updates (all in the Q&A link above with sources cited and details provided):
– Of the 77 acres going into Conservation Restriction, 58 are developable. This was documented in the 2005 At-Risk Properties Report, where a town-appointed committee hired VHB (local, respected civil engineering firm) to assess the land. Their analysis showed that the Farrington property could support at least 11 single-family homes or a large institutional campus - by right, no zoning override required. I initially flagged the Dover Amendment as the key risk, but I now think the greater risk is what’s already legally permissible.
– The housing mix is more balanced than it appears at a glance. Three of the 20 homes (15%) will be deed-restricted affordable units, helping increase Lincoln’s affordable housing stock (currently ~12%). The 14 smaller market-rate homes are projected to list at $990K, below the $1.5M–$2M average/median home prices in our and neighboring towns. Expecting Lincoln to produce housing that hits statewide affordability averages - when our land costs and market conditions don’t - isn’t realistic. This isn’t about fixing the state’s housing crisis on one lot. It’s about making a smart deal that balances multiple priorities.
– There’s a projected positive revenue impact of $91K annually. This number is net of education/ public safety costs and the loss of 3 single-family home lots. It’s a preliminary estimate and worth further vetting, but it helps correct the narrative that this will be a net fiscal loss.
–
All the materials behind this project are publicly available, including Civico’s application (see
written submission and
plans). That said, they’re scattered - so I pulled them together in one place in my Q&A linked above to make it easier to follow. I hope this also helps mitigate community members' feelings that they've been left out of the process. We have plenty of time for continued discussion and evaluation and there are many public opportunities to do so with open house and committee meetings on the books (
see Pages 28-29 here).
In short, this isn’t a perfect project. But it’s a balanced one - and it locks in 77 acres of land from future risk, adds modest housing diversity, and supports a valued local nonprofit. Please continue to share thoughts and I'll happily engage in the discussion.
Joey
