I had asked Michelle and she responded directly. She is a straight-shooter and forthcoming. I appreciated her map overlay and just wished it had been shared sooner.
The potential for 11 single family homes was before a CR, I assume. The question is how many remain AFTER the CR? An educational facility or a religious institution could still be built, by right, unless there are deed restrictions. Page Rd. access makes that more desirable than without. Other institutions were deterred by the Rt.2 access/egress issue. Page Road access/egress solves that. Is what you report regarding Page Road access a deed restriction? How does it terminate if Farrington decides to sell? That sounds like a deed restriction. We need these key issues spelled out in on document, from proponents or Town Boards who have endorsed this project. > On Jun 5, 2025, at 8:16 PM, Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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 [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.
