Good point-This isn’t a town-led initiative. And yet, the town is asked to make a financial investment in a deal that has a lot of unanswered questions. The town is asked to vote for on a zoning matter that does not address an expressed housing need. We are asked to make n investment on vague terms such as “significant buildable land.” That could be 3 acres or 30 acres…yet to be determined, yet a claim that “much is developable.”
The reports of the project seem to keep changing. I, for one, need more specificity. This is a serious town matter that needs further review, and not simply a rubber stamp. > On Jun 1, 2025, at 7:41 PM, Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Most of this is covered in the Q&A doc >>> (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= >>> and written conclusions here: >>> 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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 <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[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 <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[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 <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[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 >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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://concordma.gov/3442/Residences-at-Thoreau-Comp-Permit-Applic >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.lexingtonma.gov/932/Current-Projects >>>>>> >>>>>> Sarah Postlethwait >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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.
