Thank you for this clear insightful and rational thought Sara. Everything always seems to be urgent when it comes to town leadership pushing an agenda.
This town is just as much part of every citizen who lives here as it is town leadership's. How about get this information out sooner and there's more planning before a special town meeting held midweek when kids are getting out of school? How is there not a recent Wetland survey performed by a Wetlands engineer, a critical due diligence component of this proposal? This is just beyond me. Regardless of how long some of you have been working on this transaction, the general public, the citizens, the Democratic people, the taxpayers have had little time to digest this and then you throw in the agenda driven campaign sugar coating the details so no one really knows what's really going on. Kind Regards, Scott Clary 617-968-5769 Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors On Sun, Jun 1, 2025, 8:36 PM Sara Mattes <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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; contentsSection 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]> 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]> >> 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]> 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]> >>> 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]> 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]> 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]> 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]. >>>>> 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. > >
-- 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.
