Bob, That’s helpful and reassuring information clearly outlined. Thanks.
Regards, SRK Steven R. Kanner, MD Lincoln, MA From: Lincoln <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Bob Mason Sent: Monday, June 09, 2025 5:29 PM To: Karla Gravis <[email protected]> Cc: Lincoln Talk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Nature Link Update: Cambridge, Page Rd open questions I’d like to provide a clarification on the proposed “access agreement” between Civico and Farrington Nature Linc. Not sure where one heard that the agreement is “revocable”, but I can assure you that this is a legally binding agreement whereby Civico would provide Farrington with a Right of Way (RoW) and in exchange Farrington provides Civico with an easement for ~1 acre of land for housing and less than an acre of land for the septic. In mediating this agreement between the two parties, the RLF also wanted to be mindful of future uses of the Farrington property in case the non-profit decides to sell to another owner. In such a circumstance, the RoW over the “Panetta property” is revoked, access is then limited back to the Route 2 curb cut. In addition, there are restrictions placed on the development of the remaining ~10 acre lot that Farrington operates out of, including a size limitation on finished square footage of building(s) within the area and a prohibition against future types of uses within the area that could be detrimental to Cambridge's watershed. Finally, a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) is being offered to the RLF, which can also be assigned to the Town of Lincoln, in case we decide as a community to want to control that last remaining portion of developable land. I’d also like to add that imho we should not be concerned that the City of Cambridge will own more land than the Town of Lincoln. Projects like this often separate ownership of land and ownership of a Conservation Restriction, which puts permanent deed restrictions on how the land can be used. The Town of Lincoln has an incredible opportunity to permanently manage the ecological value of this land. And what makes this project especially impactful is how it’s contiguous to land in the south (Osborne Farm) which would create an interconnected reservation of over 100 acres. The total cost for this land conservation is $3.1M, of which the town is being asked to contribute $950K from CPC funds. So from that perspective, it’s like we’re getting 3x leverage out of our funds. The City of Cambridge contribution is almost like a “matching grant.” We’re so fortunate that Cambridge has been an incredible conservation partner over the decades. As part of their process, they have generally required a deed to land to justify contributing capital toward a project outside the city limits. Given that Lincoln institutions will control the critical CRs that seems like a fair trade off. Best regards, Bob Mason RLF Board Member On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 11:56 AM Karla Gravis <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We are incredibly grateful to have Michele's expertise in town. Based on Michele’s email to us, her professional judgment is that “the Massachusetts DEP wetland data layer appears to more closely match the wetland boundaries I observed during my site visits.” In other words, her assessment is that the DEP maps are more accurate in this case than the town’s maps and, she said: “Conservation Staff have calculated the DEP wetland boundary information on the Farrington Property”. These DEP numbers are those quoted in the Q&A. According to MassDEP, "The wetland delineations shown on these (DEP) maps do not substitute for a field delineation under Massachusetts General Laws c.131, s.40 (the Wetlands Protection Act)." Similarly, the MassGIS Wetlands Viewer notes that these maps "do not represent, and should not be used as, wetlands delineation under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40). An official wetlands delineation (with on-site flagging) is ultimately needed to settle this question. More importantly, the notice received in the mail is the first time that I see anywhere that Cambridge is receiving a total of 52 acres of land. This is ~30% more than is reflected in Mr. Kolchinsky's table. I, personally, have not seen this information in any of the official documentation provided by project sponsors. Regarding Page Road, the concern isn’t that access would disappear if Farrington were sold (that detail has been shared before). What we’ve learned this week is that, apparently, the access agreement is revocable, either by Civico or the HOA, at any time. Since the details have not been made public, it's difficult to verify whether this is accurate. While Farrington may not be seeking to maximize the financial value of its land, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the terms of the deal may be undermining its mission. As we currently understand it, they are ceding up to two-thirds of their property: several acres to Civico and 40 acres to the City of Cambridge. Now, with this new information on the potentially revocable access, even their original goal of securing Page Road access seems uncertain. Could someone confirm the details of the Page Rd. access deed, to at least alleviate this concern? It’s taken considerable time and effort by engaged residents to even begin to understand the trade-offs involved in this proposal. Community members shouldn’t have to dig so deeply or feel like they need an engineering degree just to get clear answers from project sponsors to basic questions and sort through promotional messaging. These facts deserve to be presented in a straightforward and transparent way, especially now that both the official sponsors and town leadership are actively promoting the project on the town’s website. Thank you, Karla Weston Rd On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:48 PM Joseph Kolchinsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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 <[email protected]<mailto:[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: 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]<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.
