While this is encouraging it doesn't justify this option over other better options for the town, Fairington and the environment. This is not comparing Apples to Apples referencing the Conant Road 7 acre property. Those will be conforming two acre lots. The Farrington Panetta deal involves hi density cluster rezoning. Much more value there per unit.
Kind Regards, Scott Clary 617-968-5769 Sent from a mobile device - please excuse typos and errors On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, 8:05 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 <[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: > > 1. *Hydrophytic Vegetation *(identify plants that grow in saturated > soil) > 2. *Wetland Hydrology* (observe presence of water) > 3. *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 [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.
