There is zero substance to this response. Most all pertinent points went unanswered.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 12:50 PM Joseph Kolchinsky < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 [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. > > -- Kind Regards Scott A. Clary 617-968-5769 - Cell 781-259-7195 - Home Office 781-259-7195 - Fax Residential, Commercial and Investment Real Estate - A lot of Property Sold Providing Expert Advice & Service to Greater Boston Buyers and Sellers since 1987!
-- 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.
