Sara, thank you for the historical context, especially the reminder of how long
and winding these processes often are. I agree that more time and broader
public engagement can lead to better outcomes. In this case, I want to offer a
lens that reflects the constraints we’re under.
*This isn’t a town-led initiative - it’s a private deal with a shelf life.* The
opportunity before us is to choose whether or not to support it. *Asking for
more time risks losing the deal entirely.* That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be
thoughtful. It just means we have to think in terms of tradeoffs, not ideal
timelines.
You raised a great point about wetlands flagging. I agree an updated study
would be ideal and would love to see one. But what happens if we do get one?
Here’s a thought experiment:
*Scenario A* : The updated study shows wetlands haven’t changed much. *This
validates the 2005 At Risk Properties report and confirms there’s still
significant buildable land -* meaning this remains a major conservation
opportunity.
*Scenario B* : The study shows the wetlands have expanded/shifted, limiting
buildable area. *That’s a reminder that wetlands shift and the only way to
ensure permanent protection is to lock this land in now with a Conservation
Restriction.*
Either way, I’m left in the same place: *this is a rare shot to protect 77
acres of unprotected land, much of it developable.* The alternative is
uncertainty which means we'll be exposed to the risk of something happening on
that land in the next number of years…and it'll be out of our control. I
addressed this in my Q&A on the topic of "Is most of the land wetland? Why do
we need to worry about conservation?". (
https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d )
*What study outcome would convince us this isn’t worth protecting permanently?*
That's not a hypothetical - I'm genuinely curious! :)
Joey
Joseph Kolchinsky
978-604-0827
On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 7:12 PM, Sara Mattes < [email protected] > wrote:
>
> Thank you to Joseph and others for providing helpful links.
>
>
> *The ARP Study*
> I am especially grateful that you have revisited the ARP study of 2005.
> I was a Select then and we were, at that time, struggling with the sale
> and redevelopment of the BIIC property.
> As the town had no appetite for commercial development proposed, in spite
> of the significant financial boost, we were confronted with a possible
> 40b project.
> It would have been huge.
> We were lucky when the Deaconess approached us about using the property
> for senior housing.
> But, it was a very long process to negotiate the best deal (thank you,
> Gary Taylor).
> And, we held many, many meetings with neighbors and everyone on Sandy Pond
> Rd.
> Often, neighbors organized their own meetings and invited us (the
> Selects).
> These meetings, while always civil, were not always friendly … I have some
> scars to prove it!
>
>
> All of this was very public.
> And, we took comments and concerns very seriously and worked them into the
> final project presented for a vote.
>
>
> This is how important things have been done, in the past.
> It takes time and it is messy…real democracy at work.
>
>
> It also makes for more creativity brought to the table and more consensus
> and trust in the process.
> So, the current proposal might have benefitted from the same-time and more
> extensive public engagement.
>
>
> *Previous Combined Housing and Conservation Initiatives*
> Before that, the town supported innovative mixed income home-ownership
> initiatives, with a clear objective of bringing more housing diversity and
> affordability to Lincoln while pursuing land conservation.
> The first was the development of Lincoln Woods, in which the RLF was an
> essential partner.
> Later, we developed Battle Road Farm, again with mixed income and
> affordable housing, along with conservation as drivers.
> These projects were creative and bold, with a true commitment to
> affordable housing at a variety of price points.
> Can’t we rise to that again?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Democratic Process*
> Yes, the *Selects have the ability to call for a Special Meeting* , as do
> citizens.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Section 10: Warrant; issuance;
> contents
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Section 10. Every town meeting or town election, except as hereinafter
> provided, shall be called in pursuance of a warrant, under the hands of
> the selectmen, notice of which shall be given at least seven days before
> the annual meeting or an annual or special election and at least fourteen
> days before any special town meeting.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But, with perhaps with more time between the announcement of the project
> and a Spc. Town Meeting, we would have had time to digest and answer all
> questions, to the best of all proponent's ability.
>
>
>
> 4 months of public discussion would benefit ensuring this proposal would
> get a fuller vetting and might even reflect some public input.
>
>
>
> 6 months would be even better.
>
>
>
> For now, it is the vision of the proponents and their negotiations, and
> not the general public.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Communications*
>
>
>
> A more robust and information-rich website link, as seen in Concord’s,
> would help.
>
>
>
> The information offered there (Concord-linked in a previous thread found
> below) is comprehensive and straightforward, with no devoid of editorial
> language or “sales pitch."
>
>
>
> As much as the Squirrel tries to do, it is no replacement for the old
> Lincoln/Concord Journal which kept us well-informed with straightforward
> reporting. The Concord Bridge keeps Concord informed with straightforward
> reporting.
>
>
>
> The Squirrel does a great job of providing a platform to share our thoughts
> and opinions, and to offer an excellent calendar of events and occasional
> reporting, it’s size constrains the amount of reporting coverage it can
> offer.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Critical information Required for* *Decision-Making*
>
>
>
> Regarding wetlands and the proposed for a conservation restriction….
>
>
>
> Do we have a current wetlands mapping of the property, or are we relying on
> outdated flagging and maps?
>
>
>
> The 2005 ARP study by VHB has value, but needs to be updated.
>
>
>
> Conditions have changed since 2005 and wetlands flagging needs to be
> current.
>
>
>
> We require updated flagging from residents making application for any work
> nar wetlands and buffers. It is reasonable to ask for current flagging to
> provide the most recent information to guide our understanding of the
> investment requested.
>
>
>
> Understanding the true development potential of the Farrington property,
> and the combined properties, regardless of ownership, is critical to
> understanding the potential value of a town investment of $1,000,000.
>
>
>
> I am sure more questions, concerns, opinions and suggestions will arise.
>
>
>
> It is important that we keep asking and keep an open mind.
>
>
>
> Don’t shoot the messenger.
>
>
>
> Be kind.
>
>
>
> Participate.
>
>
>
> We’re all in this together.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On May 31, 2025, at 2:02 PM, Joseph Kolchinsky < joseph. kolchinsky@ gmail.
>> com ( [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>
>> Most of this is covered in the Q&A doc ( https:/ / docsend. com/ view/
>> h33hxc7zvdstqa2d
>> ( https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d ) ), but I’ll hit the key
>> points directly here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, *Farrington is currently limited to Rt 2 access.* But that doesn’t
>> make the property low-value or immune to development. The *2005 At-Risk
>> Committee* report outlined multiple viable uses - including *single-family
>> homes and educational facilities -* on upland portions of the property:
>> drawings here
>>
>> https:/ / www. lincolntown. org/ DocumentCenter/ View/ 450/
>> Farrington-at-risk-property?bidId=
>> (
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/450/Farrington-at-risk-property?bidId=
>> ) and written conclusions here: https:/ / www. lincolntown. org/
>> DocumentCenter/
>> View/ 448/ At-Risk-Property-Final-Report-2005?bidId= (
>> https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/448/At-Risk-Property-Final-Report-2005?bidId=
>> ).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, *the Panettas can sell independently.* But this project is uniquely
>> possible because both owners are willing to sell at the same time, which
>> enables the access + conservation tradeoff.
>>
>>
>>
>> *No, Page Rd access is not required* for the property to be attractive or
>> developable. It just makes it more convenient for Farrington and thus
>> they're willing to stay there if they get Page Rd access.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Traffic impact on Page Rd still exists* even without this Page Rd access.
>> If an institution went in off Rt 2, navigation apps would route traffic
>> via Trapelo > Page > Rt 2 rather than exclusively using the U-turn at
>> Bedford. I see this today heading to the farm stand.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, *the Page Rd access being granted is limited solely to Farrington’s
>> nonprofit mission.* If they sell the land in the future, that access
>> disappears. This isn’t opening a door to future development - it’s a
>> surgical concession designed to make the conservation deal possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> On wetlands: the *majority of the 77 acres being protected is wetland* ,
>> but wetlands are not guaranteed protection. They shift. Laws change.
>> Conservation Restrictions don’t. That’s what makes this project
>> worthwhile.
>>
>>
>>
>> Joey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 31 , 2025 at 12:59 PM, Sara Mattes < samattes@ gmail. com (
>> [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, without the CIVICO/Panetta part of the deal, Farmington is constrained
>>> to the Rt.2 access.
>>>
>>> Any future owner of the Farrington property would be constrained to the
>>> same, no?
>>>
>>> Without direct access to Page Rd., the value of the Farrington property is
>>> less than with Page Rd. access, correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Panettas can sell, without this project, correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any large development, without the CIVICO/Panetta component would not have
>>> direct impact on Page Rd, correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And finally, do you or anyone have a map that delineates the wetlands that
>>> are involved in the land under discussion?
>>>
>>> Of the land being restricted, how much is wet and how much is buildable?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clarification would be extremely helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 31, 2025, at 11:39 AM, Joseph Kolchinsky < joseph. kolchinsky@
>>>> gmail.
>>>> com ( [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a fair question - why housing when conservation is the focus? I
>>>> address this specific question in the QA I posted. Below for convenience,
>>>> but the entire document is here ( https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d
>>>> ).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *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 below). Their current exit onto Route 2 is
>>>> suboptimal, and *without Page Road access, Farrington has made clear they
>>>> are not interested in this deal.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Rural Lincoln Foundation - Nature Link Presentation ) - orange line added
>>>> by me
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farrington could sell their land outright for a higher price (that we may
>>>> not afford) and relocate outside of Lincoln; worse to a third party with
>>>> large-development intentions. 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 (based on my conversations with RLF), 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. 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky
>>>>
>>>> 978-604-0827
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 11:25 AM, Sara Mattes < samattes@ gmail. com (
>>>> [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Then let’s just talk “conservation”…why a large project of expensive
>>>>> homes!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 31, 2025, at 11:12 AM, RAandBOB < raandbob@ earthlink. net (
>>>>>> [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference between this project and the housing projects Sarah linked
>>>>>> in her email is that this project has a definite benefit to the town in
>>>>>> terms of 75 acres of conservation land in an area that has always been
>>>>>> designated as appropriate land for conservation. Therefore, you wouldn’t
>>>>>> necessarily expect the town to be neutral on this project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruth Ann
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (She, her, hers)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 31, 2025, at 10:44 AM, DJCP < djcp0219@ gmail. com (
>>>>>>> [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it is incredibly frustrating to see the HCA play out again when
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> project satisfies the concerns about "too much density" by Lincoln
>>>>>>> Station
>>>>>>> by not being in Lincoln Station and being along Route 2, and yet
>>>>>>> unsubstantiated accusations of a developer being embedded in the PB are
>>>>>>> being lobbed even though TWO candidates who were vocal anti-HCAers are
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>> on the PB!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do people who oppose this project even stand for?? It's so easy to
>>>>>>> oppose everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diana
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One resident who lives on Giles Rd and who is speaking for herself
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 10:29 AM ٍSarah Postlethwait < sarah@
>>>>>>> bayhas. com
>>>>>>> ( [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It’s frustrating to see the same core issues from the HCA debate
>>>>>>>> resurface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am completely on board with any unbiased information being posted to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> website that includes official documents submitted to the town,
>>>>>>>> upcoming
>>>>>>>> meetings and/or public hearings that address the topic, without
>>>>>>>> promoting
>>>>>>>> or discouraging the proposal in anyway- these are all great ways to
>>>>>>>> ensure
>>>>>>>> residents are informed, but NOT influenced by the town website.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The town website is funded by tax payer dollars and should not be used
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> promote a private party’s interest by hosting unvetted FAQs, and
>>>>>>>> especially without allowing an opposing party to also submit their own
>>>>>>>> FAQs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are some examples of how other towns handle similar proposals:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https:/ / sudbury. ma. us/ pcd/ 2017/ 02/ 06/
>>>>>>>> the-coolidge-phase-2-comprehensive-permit-application-2/
>>>>>>>> (
>>>>>>>> https://sudbury.ma.us/pcd/2017/02/06/the-coolidge-phase-2-comprehensive-permit-application-2/
>>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https:/ / concordma. gov/ 3442/
>>>>>>>> Residences-at-Thoreau-Comp-Permit-Applic (
>>>>>>>> https://concordma.gov/3442/Residences-at-Thoreau-Comp-Permit-Applic )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https:/ / www. lexingtonma. gov/ 932/ Current-Projects (
>>>>>>>> https://www.lexingtonma.gov/932/Current-Projects )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sarah Postlethwait
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@ lincolntalk. org (
>>>>>>>> [email protected] )
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Browse the archives at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/
>>>>>>>> private/ lincoln/
>>>>>>>> ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ ).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Change your subscription settings at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/
>>>>>>>> mailman/
>>>>>>>> listinfo/ lincoln (
>>>>>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln ).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@ lincolntalk. org (
>>>>>>> [email protected] )
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Browse the archives at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/
>>>>>>> private/ lincoln/
>>>>>>> ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change your subscription settings at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/
>>>>>>> mailman/
>>>>>>> listinfo/ lincoln ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln
>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@ lincolntalk. org (
>>>>>> [email protected] )
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Browse the archives at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/ private/
>>>>>> lincoln/
>>>>>> ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change your subscription settings at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/
>>>>>> mailman/
>>>>>> listinfo/ lincoln ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln
>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
>>>>> To post, send mail to Lincoln@ lincolntalk. org ( [email protected]
>>>>> )
>>>>> .
>>>>> Browse the archives at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/ private/
>>>>> lincoln/
>>>>> ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ ). Change your
>>>>> subscription settings at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/
>>>>> listinfo/
>>>>> lincoln ( 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.
