Great question – and I agree it hasn’t been addressed clearly enough until now.
I’ve added a detailed response to the Q&A (
https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d ) and sharing here as well (below).
Happy to keep refining this if new information emerges.
Joey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Q: Will the septic system on Farrington’s property have a significant
environmental impact?*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Septic systems in Massachusetts are highly regulated. The state sets the
rules (Title 5), including strict setback requirements from wetlands and other
sensitive areas. Local Boards of Health enforce those rules. Design requires
licensed engineers, on-site soil and percolation testing, and inspection prior
to use. This isn’t a casual or lightly vetted process.
In this case, Civico’s site analysis showed that septic wasn’t viable on the
Panetta land - hence the easement on Farrington’s land. That’s led some to cite
a “14-acre leaching field,” and ask whether this creates a disproportionate
environmental burden.
*I’m not an expert* , which is why I put real weight on the perspective of
those who are. The *City of Cambridge depends on this watershed for its
drinking water.* They’ve assessed the full scope of this project - including
the septic plan - and still chose to invest $800,000. If Cambridge believed
this posed an unacceptable risk to their reservoir, they wouldn’t support it,
period.
>From everything I’ve seen, *their bigger concern is the risk of doing nothing*
>- i.e., of failing to place most of this land under permanent protection.
>That’s what drove their contribution, and that’s where I’m sourcing my own
>confidence: that *a tightly regulated septic system in exchange for 77 acres
>under Conservation Restriction is a very fair trade.*
Joseph Kolchinsky
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 9:36 AM, Karla Gravis < [email protected] > wrote:
>
>
>
> I don’t believe every angle of the deal has yet been surfaced. Given the
> rushed nature of the process, we keep learning new information that
> substantially changes the dynamic of the decision. For example, the recent
> mailer that Civico sent to our homes show *that the leaching field from the
> septic will be approximately 14 acres, all on Farrington land.* This is in
> addition to the 2 acres that Farrington would give to Civico for housing
> and Farrington’s own building envelope.
>
>
>
>
> What this means is that, from the town’s standpoint, this is not a good
> deal. It would involve using taxpayer funds earmarked for preservation to
> *enable
> the degradation of 18 acres of dryland, half of Farrington’s total
> dryland, through a combination of cut-clearing for development and use as
> a septic leaching field.*
>
>
>
>
> Accepting such a compromise, when a better outcome is clearly within reach
> for both the town and Farrington, would be a failure of responsibility and
> resolve on our part as voters. Farrington trustees have a fiduciary
> responsibility to pursue the best possible agreement. If they are willing
> to accept the current terms, they should be willing to accept a deal that
> avoids handing over land to Civico for housing and septic infrastructure.
>
>
>
>
> I still think we should delineate the wetlands before committing any
> public money, but I agree that it is unlikely to change the best course of
> action in this instance, which is to reject the deal. *However, the fact
> that we even have this uncertainty around wetlands does speak to the
> inadequacies of how the process has been handled and the problem with
> keeping the public in the dark.*
>
>
>
>
> This is what happens when private entities with significant interests are
> allowed to operate with the advantages of both public and private
> processes. A public-private partnership doesn’t mean the “public” part
> begins only when it’s time to approve the check. Negotiations shouldn’t
> happen entirely behind closed doors, only for the public to be asked to
> rubber-stamp decisions that have already been made without meaningful
> opportunity for input.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
