David – appreciate you sharing your interpretation. Just a few clarifications
based on my conversations and intent:
*First, I asked Michele to vet my post before I shared it publicly.* But if
there’s any inconsistency in how we’re relaying her comments, I absolutely
encourage anyone to reach out to her directly for clarification.
You’re right to call out that I conflated the 8.42 acres with the 2005 “At
Risk” report's mention of "Wetland Area" and "Wetland Buffer". That was my
error, and I appreciate the correction.
That said, we seem to ultimately agree that - accounting for buffer zones -
*somewhere around 30–45 acres of the 65-acre CR are upland today*. That’s an
important baseline for this discussion, and I’m glad we’re converging on it.
More importantly, *I’ve consistently made the case that Conservation
Restrictions (CRs) are valuable even on wetlands.* Wetland protections are
regulatory - they can change with laws, agencies, or conditions. CRs are deeded
and permanent. They override zoning and withstand ownership changes. That’s the
core value we’re protecting here.
On the Page Road access - my understanding is that *Farrington’s use of the
road is non-transferrable*. When/if they sell in the future, the right to use
the road terminates. That seems like a reasonable safeguard to limit long-term
traffic concerns. I expect more clarity on this in the coming days.
Your question about Farrington’s motivations is a fair one. I can’t speak for
their board, but what I’ve heard consistently is this: *they’re trying to
preserve their mission, not maximize land value*. At an early open house, a
Farrington board member said plainly: they want to remain good stewards of the
land given their founding mission, but they also need operational
sustainability. This deal lets them do both. Could they sell the land outright
and walk away with more money? Yes. But that would likely lead to full
development of the property - something that directly contradicts their
mission. Instead, they’ve chosen a path that gives up value in exchange for
long-term ecological protection and continued programming in the land they were
founded upon. That’s not self-defeating - it’s principled.
*On the transfer to Cambridge, this isn't new news - I've had it listed in the
Giving/Getting table for a few days now (and recall hearing it early on during
one of the open houses)*. I learned it by simply asking questions of the
various parties. I don’t yet know the rationale and am not sure it really
matters. As I understand it, *land under a CR can’t be developed regardless of
who owns it*. So from a conservation standpoint, that land is locked in. If we
learn otherwise, I’ll absolutely revisit my conclusion.
Joey
Joseph Kolchinsky
On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 9:53 PM, David Cuetos < [email protected] > wrote:
>
>
>
> I also exchanged emails with Michele today , and unfortunately, I don’t
> think Joseph is faithfully conveying her message. I had asked her for a
> map of the CR and when she sent it to me, I asked her why she had sent me
> the DEP map rather than the town GIS map. Here’s what she wrote back to
> me:
>
>
>
>
> "I have walked the Farrington Nature Linc property and, using vegetation
> and hydrological indicators, it is my professional opinion that the
> Massachusetts DEP wetland data layer appears to more closely match the
> wetland boundaries I observed during my site visits."
>
>
>
>
> She has not attempted to independently estimate the total amount of
> wetland area. She is instead saying that between the town GIS map and the
> state DEP map, the DEP version more closely aligns with what she saw on
> the ground.
>
>
>
>
> These are the same two wetland maps I circulated on LincolnTalk yesterday.
> Contrary to Joseph’s claim, the acreage in the DEP map is not consistent
> with the 2005 at-risk map. The DEP layer shows 8.42 acres of wetlands— twice
> the 4.2 acres shown in the at-risk map. As I’ve pointed out previously,
> the map in the at-risk report does not even match the acreage it purports
> to represent. If a report can’t get that most basic correspondence right,
> how much confidence should we place in any of its findings?
>
>
>
>
> Also, the 8.42 acres in the DEP map does not represent the full extent of
> undevelopable land. To assess how much of the Farrington property is
> actually buildable, we would need to apply the 50’ and 100’ buffer zones.
> Unfortunately, the DEP map doesn’t offer that capability. My very rough
> estimate is that once you account for the 100’ buffer, the undevelopable
> portion of the Farrington land alone is likely around 30 acres. If someone
> has the time and patience, they could draw those buffers and use the same
> grid method I used on the town GIS map to produce a more precise figure.
>
>
>
>
> To this, we should add the 12 acres of wetlands on the Panetta land, which
> are being placed into conservation. That brings the (very rough) total
> undevelopable area for Nature Linc, based on the DEP map, to about 42
> acres out of 77— 55% of the entire parcel. That’s clearly not a trivial
> percentage. Again, this continues to be a very imprecise assessment of the
> extent of wetlands in the property. I continue to argue the town should
> conduct a wetland delineation before spending $950,000.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Two important new (to me at least) developments:
>
>
>
>
> First, many of us had assumed Farrington would receive permanent formal
> access from Civico to use their road. Based on what I learned today ,
> that’s not the case. Farrington would only receive “permission” to use the
> road, conditional on their continued compliance with unspecified criteria.
> That permission could be revoked if there are any “problems.” Civico
> reportedly refused to grant an easement, as doing so would have reduced
> the value of their land. Does anyone have any more information on the
> terms of the deal?
>
>
>
>
> Second, some of you received a letter today from the Cambridge Watershed
> regarding a public hearing (see attached). What’s striking is that
> Cambridge stands to receive 52 acres of land as part of this deal. Until
> now, I had only heard that the 12 acres of Panetta wetlands would be
> deeded to Cambridge. The additional 40 acres must be coming from
> Farrington.
>
>
>
>
> Corollary:
>
>
>
>
> Farrington’s position is becoming harder and harder to make sense of.
> Their executive director previously told us they only wanted access to the
> Panetta road to head north to Route 2. That they were prepared to
> sacrifice 10 acres to Civico—and place another 14 acres under a Nitrogen
> Restriction—for that redundant access point was already difficult to
> justify. Now, learning that the access is not secured by easement, but
> rather hinges on Civico’s (and eventually the HOA’s) continued goodwill,
> makes the decision look self-defeating. On top of that, a large portion of
> their existing land is apparently being turned over to Cambridge.
>
>
>
>
> What exactly is motivating the Farrington board? Why are they pursuing a
> path that so clearly diminishes the long-term value of their property and
> their operational autonomy?
>
>
>
>
> The one silver lining for the town is this: the board now has no credible
> reason to reject a superior alternative—one in which Farrington keeps its
> land and secures access on its own terms.
>
>
>
>
> Also, why is Cambridge, which is only contributing $800,000 being deeded
> 52 acres of land while Lincoln, which is contributing $950,000, apparently
> gets nothing?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 9:12 PM Joseph Kolchinsky < joseph. kolchinsky@ gmail.
> com ( [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 < samattes@ gmail. com (
>> [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 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.
