You are the best On Sun, Jun 1, 2025, 7:13 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.
