Sara - glad this info is helpful.
Per your first point, this was addressed in the 2005 “At Risk Properties”
report commissioned by the Town and prepared by VHB, Inc. It’s linked here. (
https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/450/Farrington-at-risk-property?bidId=
) Page 2 shows that *11 single-family homes are buildable by right* under
current zoning. Page 3 goes further, showing the land could also accommodate
*an educational facility -* which could be more impactful in terms of traffic,
clearing, and development intensity.
As far as I know, there are *no deed restrictions* on the remainder of the
Farrington land beyond what would be protected through the proposed
Conservation Restriction.
You’re absolutely right that the Page Road access adds value. However, that
access *is not transferrable*. If Farrington were to sell in the future, the
deed would terminate their access to Page Road - *meaning the CR deal locks in
both conservation and limited access long term.*
On the septic land from Farrington to Civico - I don’t have a precise answer on
acreage or tree cover, though I believe it’s around one acre, and much of it is
already cleared or in edge condition. I’d welcome more specifics if others have
them.
To your final point: yes, Michele’s field assessment helps round out the
picture. But to me, the *VHB report already confirmed that the Farrington land
has real development potential* , and *this deal is our opportunity to take
control of that outcome*. If you find other data that suggests a different
conclusion, I hope you’ll share it.
Joey
Joseph Kolchinsky
978-604-0827
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 8:03 PM, Sara Mattes < [email protected] > wrote:
>
> This is important information.
>
>
> The remaining question, for me, is how much of the Farrington land, are
> actual buildable lots?
> Is there any Farrington land, outside the CR that is buildable and could
> be more densely developed in the future?
> Or, are there any restrictions on the Farrington land outside of the CR?
> The access road off Page Rd. Makes all that land much more valuable, I
> would guess.
>
>
> We know what CIVICO will pay for Panetta land….approx $1 million per
> existing lot, no?
> (For a point of reference, a property on Conant Rd.-7+ acres of farm land
> with 4 buildable lots-high on a hill, overlooking Valley Pond, deeded
> share to VP, abutting conservation land and meadows and Brown’s Wood-sold
> for $3.2 million…less than a million/lot on highly desirable land, in a
> quiet neighborhood )
>
>
> We know that Farrington is giving CIVICO a certain amount of acreage for a
> septic system.
> How many acres and how otherwise buildable/valuable is that land?
> How much of that land is currently undisturbed/tree cover?
>
>
> With the information from Michelle, we are getting some critical
> information.
> Now, we have a few more pieces to give us a more complete picture.
>
>
> Who stands to gain comes into sharper focus.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Jun 5, 2025, at 7:43 PM, Joseph Kolchinsky < joseph. kolchinsky@ gmail.
>> com ( [email protected] ) > wrote:
>>
>> Quick update after a conversation I had this morning with Michele Grzenda,
>> Lincoln's Conservation Director. As always, I've updated the Q&A document
>> ( https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d ) with this information if
>> you're looking for a comprehensive read.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Summary:*
>>
>> Lincoln’s Conservation Director, Michele Grzenda, conducted a site visit
>> of the Farrington property this past Monday and, in her professional
>> opinion, approximately *13% of the proposed Conservation Restriction (CR)
>> area qualifies as wetland (in-line with the 2005 At Risk Properties
>> report).* This means *the majority of the 65-acre CR is currently
>> developable* - and therefore, highly valuable to protect.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Why This Matters:*
>>
>> One of the more persistent questions in this process has been: Are we just
>> putting a conservation restriction on land that can’t be developed anyway?
>> It’s a fair question (though wetland boundaries do shift, bylaws change,
>> etc - so CRs are more effective/permanent than wetland designation). If
>> the land is already difficult to build on, then is it worth $950K to
>> protect it?
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer, based on this latest site assessment, is now clearer: *the land
>> being protected is buildable*. And that makes the CR both strategic and
>> permanent.
>>
>>
>>
>> *What We Now Know:
>> * Michele Grzenda is not only Lincoln’s Conservation Director - she’s an
>> experienced wetlands expert with a degree in environmental science, prior
>> work as a Wetlands Scientist, and 22 years leading conservation
>> departments (first in Framingham, then Weston, now in Lincoln). On Monday ,
>> she walked the Farrington land and performed a preliminary field
>> assessment using two of the three official criteria outlined by the
>> Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for wetland
>> delineation:
>> * *Hydrophytic Vegetation* (identify plants that grow in saturated soil)
>>
>> * *Wetland Hydrology* (observe presence of water)
>>
>> * *Hydric Soils* (observe soil with anaerobic conditions from standing
>> water) - not performed
>>
>> Her conclusion: *Only 8.42 of the 65 acres qualify as wetlands - just 13%.*
>> The other 87% is not wetland under current regulatory standards. Even if
>> you account for wetland buffers (50-100 feet), *32–48 acres likely remain
>> buildable*.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Why CR Still Matters - Even on Wetlands:*
>>
>> Wetlands protections can shift. Boundaries move. Bylaws change. Regulatory
>> standards evolve. A CR is permanent. It removes land from the development
>> pipeline, regardless of what happens with zoning, wetlands policy, or
>> ownership in the future. That permanence is what we’re investing in.
>>
>>
>>
>> *The Bottom Line:*
>>
>> This is not an investment in swamps. *It’s a strategic, permanent lockup of
>> developable land* - much of it contiguous forest and habitat that we have
>> marked as land worth protecting on our 2017 Open Space and Recreation Plan
>> and land susceptible to development on our 2005 At Risk Properties report.
>> It helps avoid unwanted development. It strengthens conservation. It
>> aligns with the town’s long-term goals.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you’re still working through your vote, I hope this helps. You can
>> always read the full Supporting Statement & Q&A here (
>> https://docsend.com/view/h33hxc7zvdstqa2d ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Joey
>>
>>
>>
>> Joseph Kolchinsky
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
