As a Select who hired VHB, I am very familiar with this report. What I have not been able to get is an overlay of the land for proposed restriction. Does one exist?
> On May 31, 2025, at 9:19 PM, Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The report in question was produced by VHB, a well-regarded civil engineering > and planning firm with deep expertise in Massachusetts land use. Their > analysis was commissioned by a town-appointed committee in 2005. > > You can review the full plans here: > https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/450/Farrington-at-risk-property?bidId=. > And if you want to review the written analysis you can see that here: > https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/448. It's clear to me this > was thoroughly performed. > > And more about VHB here: > https://www.vhb.com/locations/watertown/ > > I encourage everyone to weigh the source. A rough GIS estimation by a > concerned resident shouldn’t override a detailed site analysis by > professional engineers working under a town process. If someone with > equivalent expertise can identify a flaw in that report, I’ll gladly > reconsider - but until then, I think it’s reasonable to treat VHB’s work as > the most credible baseline we have. The numbers I provided came directly from > their report. > > > > Joseph Kolchinsky > 978-604-0827 > > On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 9:01 PM, Karla Gravis <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> A simple visual inspection of the map included in the risk report should >> immediately raise concerns for any careful reader: the calculation of >> wetlands and wetland buffers cannot possibly be accurate. In the map >> provided, more than 10% of the Farrington parcel is visibly covered by >> wetlands. >> >> Fortunately, our GIS system includes a tool for measuring areas. Using it, I >> attempted to estimate the actual amount of dry land being preserved, and my >> findings suggest a significantly smaller figure than reported. While the >> lack of a mapped septic leaching field and the absence of a coordinate-based >> map of the Farrington development envelope make precise calculations >> difficult, my estimate indicates that less than 20 acres of dry land will be >> conserved—specifically, I measured 17.7 acres. The remainder—nearly 60 >> acres—consists primarily of wetlands and wetland buffers. >> >> This observation is consistent with concerns raised by others, including Ms. >> Glynn, who have pointed out that the conservation effort appears to focus >> largely on land that is already undevelopable. >> >> To be clear, I understand that a wetland designation is not the same as a >> conservation restriction. However, there is no evidence suggesting the maps >> are inaccurate. The area in question is steep, with significant runoff and >> water accumulation in the lower elevations—exactly where the wetlands are >> mapped. >> >> The images showing my calculations are too large to be submitted to >> LincolnTalk, but they can be consulted using this link >> <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nc0gBbIZ2STyfg8bcXD5YnpIE2r3IqZP?usp=drive_link>. >> >> Karla Gravis >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>> From: Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> Date: Sat, May 31, 2025 at 4:57 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Nature Link - Town website FAQ misstatements >>>> To: Laura Glynn <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> CC: Lincoln Talk <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry - by "report" I meant the At Risk Property report issued in 2005. >>>> That can be found here >>>> <https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/450/Farrington-at-risk-property?bidId=> >>>> on page 1. Page 2 shows at least 11 homes "as right" - no zoning >>>> required. Page 3 shows an educational campus. >>>> >>>> >>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>> 978-604-0827 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 4:40 PM, Joseph Kolchinsky >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Thank you for this - it prompted me to dig into the land analysis and I'm >>>>> updating the QA document. >>>>> >>>>> On the wetlands - there’s a pretty common misunderstanding here. This is >>>>> the GIS map showing the wetlands on the Farrington property (outlined in >>>>> blue). Most of that land is upland, not wetland. That’s why the 2005 >>>>> At-Risk Properties Committee was able to site 7–12 single-family homes >>>>> and an educational facility on that land. >>>>> >>>>> The report specifically outlines how much usable area there is - over 63 >>>>> unusable acres. >>>>> >>>>> 4.2 acres - wetland >>>>> 3.1 acres - wetland buffer >>>>> 1.0 acres - unbuildable slopes >>>>> 63.4 acres - usable area >>>>> ~72 acres total >>>>> >>>>> When people mention that “most of the conservation land is wetland,” >>>>> they’re referring to the 12 acres being given by Civico from the Panetta >>>>> purchase - not the 62 acres from Farrington that's going into >>>>> Conservation Restriction. That part is true, and it’s an important >>>>> distinction. The majority of what’s going into Conservation Restriction >>>>> is not wetland today. >>>>> >>>>> As for tiny homes - I totally understand the appeal. But the issue is >>>>> economics. The Panettas want $3.3M. When you add construction and >>>>> infrastructure costs, a developer would need to build and sell a lot more >>>>> than 20 tiny homes to make the numbers work. That would likely require >>>>> higher density than what’s currently being proposed, which I suspect >>>>> would face even more obstacles from a septic and traffic perspective. >>>>> >>>>> This is where we get back to balance. The deal as proposed represents an >>>>> incredible balance of needs/issues/concerns/benefits/compromises. >>>>> >>>>> <Screenshot 2025-05-31 at 4.29.15 PM.png> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>> 978-604-0827 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 4:20 PM, Laura Glynn <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> Did anyone consider tiny houses for this location? How many of those >>>>>> could fit in? I expect the price point would be much much lower. And >>>>>> I know several people who are desperate for a tiny house >>>>>> in a town like Lincoln, they could never dream >>>>>> Of buying what is proposed >>>>>> >>>>>> I will confess that learning that most of the conservation land is >>>>>> wetland drowned any enthusiasm I might have had for the project. Yes >>>>>> wetlands change but the vegetation would have to change radically / it >>>>>> is not just a question of water >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 2:58 PM Joseph Kolchinsky >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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] >>>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>>>>> <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. >> > -- > 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.
