I got answer regarding the cost of 17 of the 20 units being proposed by CIVICO for the Panetta property. The 1800 sq ft units will sell for $1mill, the larger ones will go for $2-3 mill. The income required to afford the “starter” million dollar home is $225,000, with 20% down ($200,000) and a thirty year fixed rate at today’s rate.
Is this the “missing middle?" > On May 30, 2025, at 3:59 PM, Don Seltzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sara, > > Please do not ask me to do research for you. > As I wrote, I was simply adding one detail to the picture. > > Don > > On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 3:01 PM Sara Mattes <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> And how much do the balance sell for? >> Are they addressing the “missing middle” we have committed to addressing? >> Those homes would be $750,00 or less. >> >> >> >>> On May 30, 2025, at 2:53 PM, Don Seltzer <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> To provide a bit more detail on the housing, the three affordable 3 Bedroom >>> houses will, under HUD rules, sell for about $300K to households making >>> under $132K. >>> >>> Don Seltzer >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 6:21 AM Joseph Kolchinsky >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Fantastic point! I updated the Civico row to indicate that they are also >>>> "Getting Revenue from sale of 20 Mixed-Income Housing Units". Now it >>>> matches properly. Updated on the live doc >>>> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d> and attached here as well. >>>> >>>> This table isn't meant to indicate that anyone is being generous - simply >>>> that every part is participating in an exchange of some kind. It helps to >>>> visualize so that we can all see who is motivated by what. >>>> >>>> <Screenshot 2025-05-29 at 9.59.48 PM.png> >>>> >>>> >>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>> 978-604-0827 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 6:30 PM, Terry Kay Epperson >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Concerning the table, I would argue that Civico is not ‘giving’ the 20 >>>>> units. I think that should belong to the ‘getting’ column, since they >>>>> will be selling these at profit. >>>>> >>>>> Warm regards, >>>>> Terry Kay >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:57 PM Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> I agree, the moment the town is being asked to participate, transparency >>>>>> is required. This table I built makes it really straight forward to >>>>>> answer the question of "to whose gain". I put the below table together >>>>>> with the help of RLF and Farrington to ensure accuracy. I continue to >>>>>> update it in this document on page 4 here. >>>>>> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d> >>>>>> >>>>>> If there continues to be doubts as to the validity of this information, >>>>>> I'd love to hear what kind of confirmation one needs. If I can, I'll >>>>>> dig. I'm a curious person and really enjoy the pursuit of clarity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Joey >>>>>> >>>>>> <Screenshot 2025-05-29 at 10.42.42 AM.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:20 AM, Sara Mattes <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> To whose gain? >>>>>>> It is clear that CIVICO, Farrington, Panettas and RLF will, per >>>>>>> statements by RLF members. >>>>>>> It is not clear the value of the public investment of significant >>>>>>> public $$ and significant zoning bylaw changes. >>>>>>> That case needs to be clearly made. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is no longer a private transaction, but a public one, so the >>>>>>> public has a right and responsibility to ask for clarity. >>>>>>> These questions do not reflect conspiracy theories but responsible >>>>>>> democratic engagement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 29, 2025, at 9:13 AM, John Mendelson <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> One person's conspiracy theory is another person's ideal >>>>>>>> public/private partnership where 1+1=3. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 8:46 AM Karla Gravis <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Our CPC tax dollars are actually being used to maximize Civico’s >>>>>>>>> profits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Civico is buying the Panetta land at assessed value for its current >>>>>>>>> best use, which is the buildout of 3 single family homes. Not only is >>>>>>>>> this deal letting them build at a much higher density through revised >>>>>>>>> zoning at 20 houses, they are also getting additional land that >>>>>>>>> currently belongs to Farrington to: 1) build more housing units, and >>>>>>>>> 2) place a septic system. This scheme allows Civico to build many >>>>>>>>> more units than it would be otherwise possible. Andrew Consigli at >>>>>>>>> the PB meeting on Tuesday conceded this point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While Civico is “giving up” 12 acres of Panetta land for >>>>>>>>> conservation, which will be deeded to the City of Cambridge, this >>>>>>>>> land is excess non-buildable wetlands of no economic value (see image >>>>>>>>> below). In essence, Civico is acquiring buildable land, which they >>>>>>>>> are utilizing to increase their profit, in return for unbuildable >>>>>>>>> land. None of this would obviously be possible if it wasn't for the >>>>>>>>> fact that Lincoln is compensating Farrington, which is the party that >>>>>>>>> is ceding these valuable acres. It is absolutely fair to say that the >>>>>>>>> town of Lincoln is subsidizing Civico, albeit indirectly, if you want >>>>>>>>> in a "hidden" way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I disagree that this has been presented transparently. None of the >>>>>>>>> documentation available online mentions the transfer of land to >>>>>>>>> Civico for housing. The documentation and presentations (here >>>>>>>>> <https://lincolnconservation.org/the-nature-link-project/>) >>>>>>>>> explicitly state that these are two separate transactions, that is, >>>>>>>>> Lincoln taxpayer dollars are not benefitting Civico. A prime example >>>>>>>>> is this FAQ >>>>>>>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/1580/2025-Special-Town-Meeting> item >>>>>>>>> from the town's website to understand this dynamic at play. Is the >>>>>>>>> below factually correct? Yes. Does it hide the fact that Civico is >>>>>>>>> getting land from Farrington, that they wouldn't otherwise have >>>>>>>>> access to if CPA dollars were not at play? Also yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is any town funding going to the housing developer? >>>>>>>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/1580/2025-Special-Town-Meeting#> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No! Town CPA funds will be used for land conservation, not housing. >>>>>>>>> The developer will pay market value for the land for the >>>>>>>>> neighborhood. As a side note, in 2025 the state is projected to >>>>>>>>> provide a 20 - 25% match to our CPA funds. CPA funds are explicitly >>>>>>>>> intended to fund in full or subsidize this type of project. These >>>>>>>>> are existing funds and property taxes will not go up to fund the >>>>>>>>> project. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <IMG_4404.png> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----- Forwarded Message ----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>> To: Lincoln Talk <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 at 06:39:02 AM EDT >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Supporting the Nature Link Project: A >>>>>>>>>> Comprehensive Perspective from A Page Rd Abutter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I received a number of follow up questions and synthesized them into >>>>>>>>>> a few addition in the document. The live document can be found >>>>>>>>>> here: https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The two new Q&As are printed below. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joey >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why are town CPC funds being used instead of the developer paying >>>>>>>>>> more? >>>>>>>>>> A: Think of this as a multi-party negotiation where each side is >>>>>>>>>> acting in its own best interest. Civico is contributing $3.3M - the >>>>>>>>>> max they believe makes financial sense. If the project were more >>>>>>>>>> profitable, they’d likely offer more. But they’ve judged the >>>>>>>>>> risk/reward and capped their investment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, Rural Land Foundation (RLF) has been the >>>>>>>>>> conservation-focused voice at the table (which highly aligns with >>>>>>>>>> the town’s interests), with no financial stake beyond conservation. >>>>>>>>>> They’ve already contributed $500K and secured significant private >>>>>>>>>> donations. They also negotiated to get Civico to give 12 acres into >>>>>>>>>> permanent Conservation Restriction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Could a Town representative have negotiated more? Maybe. But that’s >>>>>>>>>> not how this deal was structured - and we don’t get to replay it. >>>>>>>>>> The question now is whether we want to risk the entire deal falling >>>>>>>>>> apart to test that theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The $950K in CPC funds isn’t a gift to Civico - it’s an investment >>>>>>>>>> in 77 acres of protected land, 65 from Farrington and 12 from >>>>>>>>>> Civico. This land is prioritized in Lincoln’s 2017–2024 Open Space & >>>>>>>>>> Recreation Plan. If we don’t use CPC funds here, they’ll be used >>>>>>>>>> elsewhere because they’ve already been collected and set aside for >>>>>>>>>> the purpose of land conservation and development. So the question >>>>>>>>>> is whether we want to put the money here or elsewhere and given the >>>>>>>>>> value of conserving 77 acres of land I don’t think there’s a better >>>>>>>>>> place to put it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Q: Isn’t this just a backdoor way for taxpayer money to benefit >>>>>>>>>> Civico? >>>>>>>>>> A: It’s completely fair to ask this. When public funds are >>>>>>>>>> requested, transparency and trust matter. Let’s lay it out plainly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Civico is paying $3.3M in private funds to purchase land directly >>>>>>>>>> from the Panetta family. That land includes three existing home lots >>>>>>>>>> and the ability to build up to 20 modest homes on already-cleared >>>>>>>>>> land. No public money is going to Civico. That’s factually correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, here’s where the perception gets murky: the conservation >>>>>>>>>> funding going to Farrington will, in part, enable a land swap that >>>>>>>>>> results in Farrington giving Civico a one-acre septic easement and >>>>>>>>>> two acres of land for development and in return getting access to >>>>>>>>>> Page Road. That trade allows Farrington to continue its mission and >>>>>>>>>> secure conservation for 65 of their acres. So yes - Civico benefits >>>>>>>>>> indirectly. But that’s also how public-private partnerships work. We >>>>>>>>>> balance capital investment, private gain, community support, and >>>>>>>>>> public return: in this case, 77 acres of permanently protected land, >>>>>>>>>> a new public trail, support for a non-profit, and a community-scale >>>>>>>>>> housing project that the town needs. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The idea that this is a “loophole” or an attempt to obscure the >>>>>>>>>> facts assumes bad intent. From all public documentation, forums, and >>>>>>>>>> FAQs, the structure has been disclosed transparently. It's complex, >>>>>>>>>> but not hidden. The complexity is a big reason why I put this >>>>>>>>>> document together. >>>>>>>>>> Skepticism is healthy. But when public dollars are paired with >>>>>>>>>> private investment, we should ask: Are we getting a good deal? In >>>>>>>>>> this case, we secure conservation, trail access, watershed >>>>>>>>>> protection, some moderate housing, and even end up supporting a >>>>>>>>>> non-profit - all without raising any taxes or requiring substantial >>>>>>>>>> compromise. That’s a balanced outcome worth serious consideration. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>>>>>> 978-604-0827 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 12:01 AM, Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [This post in its entirety can be found here (https:/ / docsend. >>>>>>>>>> com/ view/ h33hxc7zvdstqa2d >>>>>>>>>> <https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d>). It's formatted for an >>>>>>>>>> easier read and contains a number of images, links, and references. >>>>>>>>>> I will continue to update it with new questions and answers as >>>>>>>>>> additional conversation develops and more information becomes >>>>>>>>>> available.] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello neighbors. I live on Page Road and abut the Farrington land. >>>>>>>>>> Like some of you, I was skeptical of the Nature Link proposal at >>>>>>>>>> first. But after spending real time with the details, I now believe >>>>>>>>>> this is exactly the kind of thoughtful, balanced solution we need in >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln. It protects land, supports an important non-profit, adds >>>>>>>>>> needed housing, and most importantly it heads off far riskier >>>>>>>>>> alternatives. Below I’ve laid out the top concerns I’ve heard and >>>>>>>>>> why I believe this deal is the right move for our town. Happy to >>>>>>>>>> have thoughtful discourse and welcome open-minds to the conversation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As you read on, I ask that you think of a phrase often used in the >>>>>>>>>> non-profit world: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Things happen to you, for you, or because of you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As a community, if we want to move our missions forward and take >>>>>>>>>> advantage of this opportunity, we need to take proactive steps to >>>>>>>>>> pounce on this opportunity and make it happen because of us. No one >>>>>>>>>> is going to step in and do this work for us. And, if left to >>>>>>>>>> chance, alternative outcomes are likely to, happen to us, and they >>>>>>>>>> likely won't be nearly as good as what I believe the Nature Link >>>>>>>>>> project achieves. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Top Reasons to Support the Nature Link Project >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Conservation at scale: 77 acres of ecologically valuable land will >>>>>>>>>> be permanently protected from future development, preserving >>>>>>>>>> forests, wetlands, and trail systems for generations. This is the >>>>>>>>>> largest undeveloped, forested, and unprotected area in Lincoln. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Secures Farrington's future: This deal stabilizes a non-profit with >>>>>>>>>> a mission to connect under-resourced youth with nature, allowing >>>>>>>>>> them to continue their work and stay in Lincoln. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Adds relatively affordable homes: 20 modest homes (replacing 3 >>>>>>>>>> existing, 17 net) provide much-needed "missing middle" housing >>>>>>>>>> stock, helping young families and downsizing seniors stay in Lincoln. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Miles of trails will be made permanently available to all Lincoln >>>>>>>>>> residents through the conservation land carved out by this deal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Supports 40B compliance: Some units will be income-restricted, >>>>>>>>>> helping the town meet its Chapter 40B obligations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Avoids Dover Amendment-risk: By putting Farrington into >>>>>>>>>> conservation and giving Farrington financial stability, we >>>>>>>>>> substantially reduce the looming risk of institutional-scale >>>>>>>>>> development on that land under the Dover Amendment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +What’s good enough for Cambridge is good for us: While "no septic >>>>>>>>>> system" is better than any septic system, the City of Cambridge has >>>>>>>>>> the most to lose here given they depend on the clean watershed to >>>>>>>>>> protect the reservoir as their water source - and they fully support >>>>>>>>>> this plan and are putting $800k in to back it up. If the people >>>>>>>>>> drinking the water support this to mitigate future risk, I think we >>>>>>>>>> should be aware of that future risk and support mitigating it, too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Realistic traffic impact: Estimated traffic increase is ~5-10%, a >>>>>>>>>> nominal amount that doesn't warrant the concern. See further below >>>>>>>>>> for my analysis on the numbers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Transparent, enforceable plan: This is a tightly structured, >>>>>>>>>> multi-party agreement with baked-in protections, approvals, and >>>>>>>>>> community oversight - not an open-ended blank check to a developer. >>>>>>>>>> Farrington's land is put into conservation through deeds and >>>>>>>>>> Conservation Restrictions (CRs), the developer is locked into >>>>>>>>>> approved plans, and Farrington's use of the access road to Page Rd >>>>>>>>>> expires upon any transfer of ownership so it can't be used in the >>>>>>>>>> future by other parties. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +As a direct neighbor to this project, I don’t take change lightly. >>>>>>>>>> I will see and feel the impacts of 17 new homes more than most. It >>>>>>>>>> would be easy for me to oppose any development next door. But I >>>>>>>>>> choose to support Nature Link because I firmly believe it’s the best >>>>>>>>>> path forward for our community as a whole. It’s a rare instance >>>>>>>>>> where the community as a whole gets something positive: Farrington >>>>>>>>>> gets the funds to sustain its nature programs, Lincoln gets >>>>>>>>>> permanently protected land and walking trails, a thoughtful >>>>>>>>>> developer gets to build much-needed starter homes, and new families >>>>>>>>>> get a chance to make Lincoln their home. I'm willing to support the >>>>>>>>>> greater good and, based on recent discussions, believe most of my >>>>>>>>>> Page Rd neighbors do as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No plan is perfect, and it’s okay to have questions and doubts. I’ve >>>>>>>>>> tried to address the major concerns with facts and respectful >>>>>>>>>> reasoning further below. Our town’s discourse can certainly get >>>>>>>>>> heated - but at the end of the day, I think we all share the same >>>>>>>>>> love for Lincoln and want to see it thrive without losing what makes >>>>>>>>>> it special. Nature Link is a compromise that achieves that, by >>>>>>>>>> blending conservation and smart growth in a way that enhances our >>>>>>>>>> community. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I invite everyone to look at the official documents, ask hard >>>>>>>>>> questions, and satisfy themselves on the details. From what I’ve >>>>>>>>>> seen, the more you dig, the more this deal holds up as sensible and >>>>>>>>>> forward-looking. I’ll be voting Yes at the Special Town Meeting on >>>>>>>>>> June 25, and I encourage my fellow residents to consider doing the >>>>>>>>>> same. Let’s seize this opportunity to protect a beautiful piece of >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln while also shaping a future we can be proud of - one where >>>>>>>>>> our children and new neighbors can enjoy the same natural beauty and >>>>>>>>>> community spirit that drew us all here in the first place. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for reading, and I’m happy to discuss further with an open >>>>>>>>>> mind and mutual respect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joseph (and Jennifer) Kolchinsky at 83 Page Rd >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you’d like to add your name in support of this perspective, >>>>>>>>>> please do so by filling out this form. https:/ / forms. gle/ >>>>>>>>>> JFWdWUzbbdR9mUtC9 <https://forms.gle/JFWdWUzbbdR9mUtC9> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> I pose the following questions further below. >>>>>>>>>> Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why can’t this be simpler if the focus is on conservation? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry >>>>>>>>>> about conservation? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road? >>>>>>>>>> Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we want >>>>>>>>>> for conservation? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for? >>>>>>>>>> Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the trails >>>>>>>>>> be open to the public? >>>>>>>>>> Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: What are the motives of the various parties in this transaction? >>>>>>>>>> A: There are economic, community, social, environmental, and utility >>>>>>>>>> benefits for many parties. At first it felt overly complex, but as >>>>>>>>>> I dug in to learn more I came to appreciate why this project >>>>>>>>>> involved each entity. It balances many aligned interests, including >>>>>>>>>> mine as a Page Rd resident. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> See attached chart titled Parties to the Nature Link Project. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <5a4592ab-dbf7-4464-97e6-5c081c75daed.png> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> 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 attached). Their current >>>>>>>>>> exit onto Route 2 is suboptimal, and without Page Road access, >>>>>>>>>> Farrington has made clear they are not interested in this deal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <2b35f295-689f-45b6-b2d8-6a2e3e8b54df.png> >>>>>>>>>> See attached image titled Farrington Access Road which highlights >>>>>>>>>> the access road in orange. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Farrington could sell their land outright for a higher price and >>>>>>>>>> relocate outside of Lincoln. The Dover Amendment allows religious or >>>>>>>>>> educational institutions who might buy the to override zoning - >>>>>>>>>> leaving us without say on future use. 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, 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 >>>>>>>>>> under the Dover Amendment. 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why can’t Farrington simply repair/improve the Rt 2 egress? >>>>>>>>>> A: While Route 2 access is a challenge, it’s not the core issue for >>>>>>>>>> Farrington. What they truly need - and have been consistent about - >>>>>>>>>> is access to Page Road, not an upgrade to their current exit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even with improvements to Rt 2, Farrington is not willing to stay in >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln without Page Road access. Without it, they’ve indicated they >>>>>>>>>> would likely sell the land - potentially for $7-$10M - and relocate >>>>>>>>>> elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That outcome puts the community at risk of a Dover Amendment-related >>>>>>>>>> sale, where a religious or educational institution could bypass >>>>>>>>>> local zoning. Such a development could bring greater environmental >>>>>>>>>> disruption, threaten watershed protections, and increase Page Road >>>>>>>>>> traffic as drivers to a future school or place of worship avoid Rt >>>>>>>>>> 2’s Bedford Rd U-turn and instead cut through Trapelo and Page. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Most of the land is already wetlands. Why do we need to worry >>>>>>>>>> about conservation? >>>>>>>>>> A: It’s a good question - but wetlands protection and Conservation >>>>>>>>>> Restrictions (CRs) are not the same, especially in scope, >>>>>>>>>> permanence, and enforceability. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wetlands are regulated under state law (like the Massachusetts >>>>>>>>>> Wetlands Protection Act), which limits building near sensitive >>>>>>>>>> areas. But these protections are regulatory, not permanent. Wetland >>>>>>>>>> boundaries can shift, and permits can still be granted - especially >>>>>>>>>> if an applicant shows limited impact. And laws can be amended over >>>>>>>>>> time, which means protections can weaken. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A Conservation Restriction is different. It’s a legal agreement tied >>>>>>>>>> to the deed, permanently limiting how the land can be used - >>>>>>>>>> regardless of ownership or zoning changes. It can’t be undone >>>>>>>>>> without approval from the state and the CR holder. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: wetlands protection controls what’s allowed today while >>>>>>>>>> a Conservation Restriction locks in protections forever - ensuring >>>>>>>>>> the land stays open, natural, and undeveloped. If the goal is >>>>>>>>>> long-term preservation, CRs are the only real guarantee and are >>>>>>>>>> worth finding compromise to achieve. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Is this project getting special treatment from the town? >>>>>>>>>> A: No. Some concerns have been raised about “special treatment” or >>>>>>>>>> bypassing town process - but this project is following the exact >>>>>>>>>> path laid out in Lincoln’s zoning bylaws, specifically through the >>>>>>>>>> North Lincoln Overlay District, which was created by Town Meeting in >>>>>>>>>> 1986 (and approved with ⅔ vote) and subsequently approved by the >>>>>>>>>> Massachusetts Attorney General at the time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The overlay was designed to encourage creative, controlled >>>>>>>>>> development in North Lincoln, where growth potential existed but >>>>>>>>>> required thoughtful planning. Over the years, the town has added >>>>>>>>>> other overlays for wetlands, wireless infrastructure, and solar >>>>>>>>>> development - tools created to address specific needs through >>>>>>>>>> structured, public processes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The North Lincoln Overlay specifically allows developers to propose >>>>>>>>>> site-specific plans that undergo: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rigorous review by the Planning Board, environmental and traffic >>>>>>>>>> studies, municipal impact analysis, and approval by a ⅔ vote at a >>>>>>>>>> Special Town Meeting. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I recently read the full application requirements for the North >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln Overlay District in the Town of Lincoln’s Zoning Bylaws - it >>>>>>>>>> spans ten pages starting on Page 32 (Section 12.5). The process >>>>>>>>>> includes detailed plans, public presentations, and ongoing >>>>>>>>>> oversight. Once approved by ⅔ super majority at the Town Meeting on >>>>>>>>>> June 25, any future changes require Planning Board approval. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This isn’t a shortcut - if anything, it’s a high bar. The overlay >>>>>>>>>> was built to allow for public benefit through structured >>>>>>>>>> development, and that’s exactly how it’s being used here: to lock in >>>>>>>>>> conservation protections, establish trail access, and cap >>>>>>>>>> development at 20 homes with pre-approved designs. The developer >>>>>>>>>> cannot expand or change the plan without full review and approval. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And crucially, this process protects us from the Dover Amendment, >>>>>>>>>> which could otherwise allow large, zoning-exempt institutions to >>>>>>>>>> develop this land. By using the overlay to structure a deal that >>>>>>>>>> places the majority of the land under conservation restrictions, we >>>>>>>>>> retain control and align the outcome with Lincoln’s values. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why didn’t we know about this sooner? >>>>>>>>>> A: It’s important to remember that this began as a private >>>>>>>>>> transaction between private parties. The Town’s involvement is >>>>>>>>>> limited to zoning approval - specifically, the creation of the North >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln Planned Development District and the issuance of a Special >>>>>>>>>> Permit. Until that stage, the private entities are legally entitled >>>>>>>>>> to work through the details independently. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The zoning bylaws outline what happens next. Once the Planning Board >>>>>>>>>> approves the application, the Town is required to host a Special >>>>>>>>>> Town Meeting and send a town-wide mailing at least 14 days in >>>>>>>>>> advance: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> “In addition to the notices required by law, a description of the >>>>>>>>>> preliminary plan and notice of such hearing, including reduced >>>>>>>>>> reproductions of architectural renderings and of the site plan, all >>>>>>>>>> in form approved by the Planning Board, shall be mailed to each >>>>>>>>>> postal patron in the Town at least 14 days prior to such hearing.” >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Until that notification window, no formal public outreach is >>>>>>>>>> required. However, recognizing the complexity and potential >>>>>>>>>> community interest, the Rural Land Foundation began a public >>>>>>>>>> communications effort more than two months in advance of the Town >>>>>>>>>> Meeting. They’ve since hosted (or scheduled) a dozen in-person and >>>>>>>>>> virtual sessions to inform and engage residents. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This goes well beyond what is required, and includes shared >>>>>>>>>> recordings and transparent Q&A sessions. In short, while the formal >>>>>>>>>> process hasn’t fully kicked in yet, the project sponsors have made a >>>>>>>>>> concerted and good-faith effort to inform the community well ahead >>>>>>>>>> of schedule. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why aren’t we provided with more options? >>>>>>>>>> A: It’s not the responsibility of private citizens to present >>>>>>>>>> multiple alternatives. Under the North Lincoln Overlay District, >>>>>>>>>> anyone can propose a project, meet the requirements, and seek >>>>>>>>>> approval at Town Meeting. If voters want other options, they’re free >>>>>>>>>> to pursue them - but that doesn’t mean this proposal isn’t valid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That said, this deal has a shelf life. The Panettas and Farrington >>>>>>>>>> are ready to move forward - and they don’t have the luxury of >>>>>>>>>> waiting. If this falls through, they’ll act in their own interests, >>>>>>>>>> which likely means no conservation, no housing diversity, and a >>>>>>>>>> missed opportunity to shape the outcome ourselves. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Farrington needs financial stability and will likely seek a buyer. A >>>>>>>>>> sale in the $7-$10M range is feasible - especially for a >>>>>>>>>> Dover-exempt institution - but much harder for the town to match. >>>>>>>>>> Today’s deal costs far less and offers real protections - if we’re >>>>>>>>>> willing to meet in the middle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Will 17 new housing units create too much traffic on page road? >>>>>>>>>> A: Seventeen net-new housing units will add traffic, but I believe >>>>>>>>>> the impact will be modest. With three homes already on the property, >>>>>>>>>> the net change is 17 homes. Traffic studies estimate each unit >>>>>>>>>> generates 8-10 vehicle trips per day (vpd) - about 170 vpd total. >>>>>>>>>> Page Road (with its 100 homes and convenient cut through from >>>>>>>>>> Trapelo to Rt 2) likely handles over 2,000 vpd today, so this is >>>>>>>>>> only a 5-10% increase. With that said, I have two little kids and so >>>>>>>>>> wish they could be biking on Page Rd safely and hesitate to allow >>>>>>>>>> them to do that already, so I understand the concern and still >>>>>>>>>> believe this is an appropriate increase given the value of the rest >>>>>>>>>> of the project. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And consider the alternative: if this deal falls through, we could >>>>>>>>>> face a Dover Amendment-related development on Farrington land, like >>>>>>>>>> a religious or educational campus. That kind of use could generate >>>>>>>>>> far more traffic, especially as large volumes of cars, likely at >>>>>>>>>> peak times, try to access the property via Trapelo > Page > Rt 2. >>>>>>>>>> If that happens I will for sure regret that we didn’t find a way to >>>>>>>>>> accept this deal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: How does 17 new homes now mean less development later? >>>>>>>>>> A: It may seem counterintuitive, but building 17 net new homes now >>>>>>>>>> actually reduces long-term development risk - while permanently >>>>>>>>>> protecting more of Lincoln’s rural character. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While the current zoning allows only three homes on the Panetta >>>>>>>>>> property, there are no conservation protections on Farrington’s >>>>>>>>>> land. Lincoln has already identified this as the largest unprotected >>>>>>>>>> forest block in town and placed it high in its priority list per the >>>>>>>>>> Open Space and Recreation Plan in 2017. Without action, Farrington >>>>>>>>>> could sell, and the land could be redeveloped under the Dover >>>>>>>>>> Amendment, which allows religious and educational institutions to >>>>>>>>>> bypass zoning. If you're unsure what this could look like in our >>>>>>>>>> neighborhood, look at this temple in Belmont or read this analysis >>>>>>>>>> on its impact to Massachusetts towns/cities. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A deeded conservation restriction is our only permanent safeguard. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nature Link proposes 20 total homes - including 17 new units - on >>>>>>>>>> already cleared land, while protecting over 77 acres (65 from >>>>>>>>>> Farrington and 12 from Panetta). Only about one acre is used for >>>>>>>>>> septic, in exchange for safeguarding forests, wetlands, and trails >>>>>>>>>> forever. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And this isn’t just conservation - it also provides “missing middle” >>>>>>>>>> housing, the kind Lincoln lacks. It gives young families and >>>>>>>>>> downsizing seniors a way to stay in Lincoln - in-line with Lincoln’s >>>>>>>>>> character and community-oriented feel. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Can we trust the developer, Civico? >>>>>>>>>> A: Healthy skepticism is important - but so is acknowledging the >>>>>>>>>> goodwill, oversight, and enforceable structure that shape this >>>>>>>>>> proposal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Civico has worked closely with the Rural Land Foundation, the >>>>>>>>>> Panetta family, and Farrington to navigate a complex, multi-party >>>>>>>>>> agreement. Bringing a project like this together isn’t simple - and >>>>>>>>>> it doesn’t happen without collaboration and transparency. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> More importantly, this deal isn’t based on trust alone. It will be >>>>>>>>>> codified through zoning bylaws, conservation restrictions, and >>>>>>>>>> developer agreements. The North Lincoln Overlay District locks in >>>>>>>>>> the number of homes, layout, and land preservation. Any changes >>>>>>>>>> would require coming back to the Town for approval. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And with Lincoln’s track record of detailed Planning Board and >>>>>>>>>> Conservation Commission review, every septic line, drainage system, >>>>>>>>>> and house footprint will be scrutinized. We're not handing over >>>>>>>>>> control - we're managing it with oversight and legally binding plans. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Why should we support a developer making a profit on land we want >>>>>>>>>> for conservation? >>>>>>>>>> A: Because real, lasting conservation often requires balancing >>>>>>>>>> social good with economic sustainability - and that means welcoming >>>>>>>>>> partners who can make the math work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Civico is a for-profit company, yes - but in this project, they’re >>>>>>>>>> also a financial enabler of conservation and housing outcomes the >>>>>>>>>> town values. The Panetta family is asking $3.3M for their land. If >>>>>>>>>> the community could raise that ourselves - and fund the access road >>>>>>>>>> to Page Road - we wouldn’t need Civico. But if we can't, we need a >>>>>>>>>> partner who can. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Civico is willing to put up the $3.3M in exchange for the ability to >>>>>>>>>> develop housing under the North Lincoln Overlay District. They >>>>>>>>>> cannot do that under current zoning, which is why the offer of one >>>>>>>>>> acre for septic, and the potential overlay designation are essential >>>>>>>>>> to making the deal viable. In return, we gain: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +A permanent conservation restriction protecting 75+ acres and >>>>>>>>>> providing public trails, >>>>>>>>>> +17 new mixed-income housing units for families and downsizing >>>>>>>>>> seniors, >>>>>>>>>> +and a path forward that keeps Farrington on its land, doing its >>>>>>>>>> mission. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Most major conservation deals over the last 60 years have included a >>>>>>>>>> development component. That’s because conservation doesn't fund >>>>>>>>>> itself - unless the community pays, it often needs economic activity >>>>>>>>>> to subsidize it. In this case, the housing helps create the >>>>>>>>>> opportunity for the land protection. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even the use of CPC funds reflects this blend: these funds can only >>>>>>>>>> support open space, affordable housing, and historic preservation. >>>>>>>>>> In this case the CPA funds will be directed for only the land >>>>>>>>>> conservation portion of this project with 77 acres conserved, >>>>>>>>>> however the town will also get 3 income-restricted homes that will >>>>>>>>>> be fully funded by the Developer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The result isn’t pure profit - it’s shared benefit. Conservation, >>>>>>>>>> housing, and community values, aligned through a partnership that >>>>>>>>>> makes it possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Is the housing actually affordable? Who will these homes be for? >>>>>>>>>> A: The 20 planned homes are designed as “starter homes” by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>> standards - smaller, more modest, and more accessible than typical >>>>>>>>>> multi-million-dollar properties. Three units will be designated >>>>>>>>>> income-restricted at 80% of Average Median Income (AMI); the rest >>>>>>>>>> aim to serve middle-income buyers: young families priced out of town >>>>>>>>>> and seniors looking to downsize. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lincoln’s own housing plan identifies this missing middle - condos, >>>>>>>>>> townhomes, and smaller homes for non-luxury buyers - as a critical >>>>>>>>>> gap. Nature Link helps close that gap with smaller lots and >>>>>>>>>> efficient design, offering options between luxury builds and >>>>>>>>>> deed-restricted affordable housing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These homes won’t be affordable in every sense, but they are far >>>>>>>>>> more attainable than what’s currently being built in the town. Three >>>>>>>>>> units will count toward our 10% 40B requirement, and the rest >>>>>>>>>> support a diverse, sustainable community. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bottom line: this brings in new neighbors who enrich our town, >>>>>>>>>> instead of limiting access to only the highest bidder. That’s a win >>>>>>>>>> for Lincoln’s values of inclusion and community. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: Will the conservation land be truly protected and will the trails >>>>>>>>>> be open to the public? >>>>>>>>>> A: Yes. A key reason I support this project is the lasting >>>>>>>>>> protection it gives land that might otherwise be developed. The deal >>>>>>>>>> puts permanent Conservation Restrictions on 65 acres of Farrington >>>>>>>>>> and 12 acres of Panetta land. These legally binding agreements, held >>>>>>>>>> by the Land Trust or Town, prohibit future development - permanently. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Farrington will retain ownership but will be limited to educational >>>>>>>>>> and low-impact uses. If they ever sell, Page Road access is removed, >>>>>>>>>> preventing future owners from intensifying use. The City of >>>>>>>>>> Cambridge is also investing in this project to protect its watershed >>>>>>>>>> - clear evidence that this plan aligns with environmental goals. >>>>>>>>>> Only one acre is used for septic, and all construction must meet >>>>>>>>>> state, local, and Lincoln’s all-electric building codes - likely an >>>>>>>>>> improvement over the existing homes codes, requiring them to be all >>>>>>>>>> electric, which is likely an improvement on the existing homes on >>>>>>>>>> the property. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This plan also opens access to previously private land. A 1.5-mile >>>>>>>>>> public trail will extend through the property and connect to the >>>>>>>>>> Osborne Conservation Area and out to Page Road. As an abutter, I’m >>>>>>>>>> glad neighbors can enjoy this space. Trail and land access will be >>>>>>>>>> open to all Lincoln residents, not just the new homeowners. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All protections - CRs, trail access, septic boundaries - will be >>>>>>>>>> detailed in the Town Meeting warrant. If anything is unclear, we >>>>>>>>>> should demand clarification before voting. But from what I’ve seen, >>>>>>>>>> the deal is clear: conserve land, open trails, allow minimal >>>>>>>>>> development. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> —---------------- >>>>>>>>>> Q: What if we do nothing? What’s the risk of inaction? >>>>>>>>>> A: This may be the most important question. If we reject this deal, >>>>>>>>>> we must be clear-eyed about what happens next. Farrington, who will >>>>>>>>>> be committing 65 acres to conservation, is exploring sustainable >>>>>>>>>> ways to continue its mission amid financial constraints. Without >>>>>>>>>> this funding, they could shut down or sell. While some hope for an >>>>>>>>>> all-conservation rescue, it’s speculative and far more expensive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The risk I don’t enjoy thinking about is one where the land gets >>>>>>>>>> sold to an entity that invokes the Dover Amendment - a religious or >>>>>>>>>> educational use that can bypass local zoning. Picture dorms, a large >>>>>>>>>> school, or a church complex with little Town oversight. Open space? >>>>>>>>>> Gone. Conservation? Gone. The public values we’re trying to preserve >>>>>>>>>> - trails, ecology, housing - would be at greater risk. See further >>>>>>>>>> above >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We’d lose control. And ironically, those opposing development now >>>>>>>>>> might face more disruptive development later - on worse terms, with >>>>>>>>>> fewer benefits. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nature Link is a proactive, community-crafted solution. It gives >>>>>>>>>> Farrington long-term viability, preserves land, adds modest housing >>>>>>>>>> we shape, and avoids the Dover Amendment risk. And it’s backed by >>>>>>>>>> the Rural Land Foundation, Farrington, the Panetta family, Civico, >>>>>>>>>> the City of Cambridge, and many individuals I’ve spoken with. Now >>>>>>>>>> is the time to bring it home with the needed ⅔ supermajority vote at >>>>>>>>>> the Special Town Meeting on June 25. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Doing nothing isn’t preservation - it’s gambling. And the odds >>>>>>>>>> aren’t in Lincoln’s favor if we go that route. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>> <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.
