Farrington/Nature Link project*

(Editor’s note: this story was updated on June 27.)

At a June 25 Special Town Meeting that saw a record-setting turnout, voters approved the Nature Link deal and additional funding for the community center by comfortable margins, while a proposal to change how Finance Committee members are appointed was shot down.

Hundreds of residents waited patiently in the early evening heat in a check-in line that stretched around and down the road almost to the parking lot in front of the Hartwell pods. It was one of the most most heavily attended Town Meetings in Lincoln history, second only to the 2018 school vote, which drew 906 votes compared to the 859 who voted on the community center article, which passed 73% to 27%, achieving the required two-thirds majority.

Voters were asked to approve using $2.33 million from the stabilization fund to cover a budget shortfall that became apparent when all the construction bids were over budget. Due to the threat of tariffs on items including construction materials, “our cost estimator raised concerns in March,” but by the it was too late to revisit the design by the time bids were solicited in early May, “and unfortunately our concerns were realized when these bids came in,” Community Center Building Committee Chair Sarah Chester said.

Items including the new playground and furniture, fixtures and equipment were cut from the construction budget, but “the contingency fund was not enough to close the funding gap, and it would be fiscally irresponsible to deplete that fund before breaking ground,” Select Board member Kim Bodnar said. The CCBC also increased the contingency fund from 5% to 7% given the ongoing market uncertainties.

Comments from the floor were overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal, though the discussion was marred by shouts including “shut up” and “turn off the microphone!” when a new resident attending her first Lincoln Town Meeting persisted in speaking longer than the allotted two minutes. That limit was enforced more strictly this week than in the past with the aid of a time projected on the screen for all to see.

The woman spoke at length about the benefits of the Lincoln Extended-day After School Program, which will be housed in the new community center. Town Moderator Sarah Cannon Holden finally got her to answer which way she was planning to vote, to which the woman replied she was a “no” vote because there was no guarantee either that LEAP could be expanded to meet demand or that the playground would be built. The woman shouted from the floor again when the question was moved, but Holden shut her down, saying, “Let’s be respectful.” 

On LincolnTalk the next morning, several residents objected to what they described as “disrespectful” treatment of the woman. But Leslie Turek demurred, saying, “She was being disrespectful to the rest of us by not abiding by the rules that had been established. Yes, it is true that a few people also ran over, but they understood the restriction and did wrap up quickly. It would have been better if the moderator had calmly explained the rule to her and the crowd did not react as they did, but I also think that if there is a rule, it should apply equally to everyone.”

If residents didn’t approve the additional funding, “there’s no going back. [The community center] won’t be delayed, it will disappear for generations,” said Noah Eckhouse. “We paid the price” for pushing off approval of the school project, and as in that case, “costs will rise, the design complexity will increase, and time will slip away… There is no do-nothing option. it will never be cheaper than it is today. We have the funds — that’s what the stabilization fund is for.”

Nature Link

The first of two Nature Link articles, which also required a two-thirds majority, passed easily, 80% to 20% (644-165). That measure put the Panetta/Farrington land abutting Route 2, part the North Lincoln Overlay District, into a new Planned Development District to allow a cluster of 20 new homes to be built, pending Planning Board site plan review. 

The second Nature Link article, which asked voters to approve a transfer of funds from Community Preservation Fund to the general fund balance so the town could help gain a permanent conservation restriction on 77 acres of the Farrington land, passed 608-124 (83% to 17%). The original plan was to ask for $950,000, but it was changed to $850,000 because private fundraising exceeded expectations.

The conservation restriction, which will prevent future development on the land (including by a religious or educational organization), is costing a total of $3.1 million. Of that, the City of Cambridge is paying $800,000 due to the property’s proximity to the Cambridge Reservoir, and fundraising that included 100 private pledges plus $500,000 from the Rural Land Foundation/Lincoln Land Conservation Trust.  

In a separate deal, Civivo, which built Oriole Landing, is buying three lots from the Panetta family for $3.3 million. The company plans to build 17 starter homes (three of which will be income-restricted) and three larger homes. That housing and Farrington Nature Linc will share a new access road from Page Road (Farrington currently is accessible only from Route 2 eastbound).

At the meeting, most speakers were in favor of the deal, but some advocated for splitting up the housing and land conservation aspects. David Cuetos also argued that the RLF had an unfair advantage and implied that the proposal was brought to voters too quickly and without sufficient input from some Page Road residents who said they were not notified by the town about the proposal.

“It’s opaque, it’s undemocratic,” Cuetos said. “We should not reward secrecy and favoritism.”

Klaus Dobler, a Page Road abutter, said the deal meant that taxpayers were “indirectly supporting developer profits” by allowing the new neighborhood’s septic system to be on the Farrington land. He also objected to the argument that without the conservation restriction, the Farrington land was at risk of being sold and developed. “To me, that’s a pressure tactic and a red flag,” he said. As for the time pressure to have the vote, “It’s Email 101 — if someone is telling you right away to act quickly, watch out.”

Dobler also touted a proposal from Jeff and Arline Sutherland to purchase and “rewild” the Farrington property, which would achieve the same conservation and educational goals. But Page Road resident Joey Kolchinsky pushed back. “This alternate plan is a false promise. It comes with no guarantees and none of the key players are on board,” he said. There would also be no guarantee that the Panetta land would be safe from future development, he added.

FinCom appointments

Article 5 asked residents to have Finance Committee members appointed by the Select Board rather than the Town Moderator as they are now. The request was motivated by “recent concerns about town finances as well as the alleged loss of payments to the town for Hanscom School teacher pensions from the Department of Defense.

“These were catalysts, but we’re focusing on improving town governance going forward, not any specific financial issue,” said Bob Domnitz, who represented those who signed a citizens’ petition to bring the matter to Town Meeting.

The bigger issue, Domnitz said, is that the FinCom openings are not advertised and candidates are not interviewed in open forums. The committee is supposed to be a natural body with diverse viewpoints, “but that’s not what seems to be happening in Lincoln,” he said. The petitioners aren’t advocating for direct election of FinCom members, however; “FinCom is one of the most difficult jobs in town and asking someone to campaign for the job seems like cruel and unusual punishment.”

The Select Board voted not to recommend the change, saying the move “would have the appearance of giving us undue influence over the budget process” by naming the people who would deliberate over a town budget that the Selects themselves had submitted, board member Jim Hutchinson said. That said, “we agree that it is important to continue to review practices with an eye to transparency and improvement.”

In discussions with Holden, “we confirmed her willingness to broadly advertise, publicly interview, and consider input from the current Finance Committee about their needs and preferences, and we encourage future moderators to do the same,” he added.

Holden recused herself but spoke from the floor, agreeing that she welcomed the suggestions and “I look forward to including [them] in the Lincoln moderator handbook that I’m writing.”

“The FinCom sits between boards and the [voters] who make those decisions who are sitting in this room,” said former FinCom Chair Andy Payne. Two other residents urged defeat of the proposal, both saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The final vote was 80 in favor and 345 against.

Article 2 was actually voted on first at the meeting because it was the least controversial and attendees were still filing into the gym and auditorium. Residents unanimously approved a transfer of $25,000 from free cash to the reserve fund in the budget for the current fiscal year that ends on June 30, 2025.

A summary drawing of the Nature Link project supplied by the Rural Land Foundation.

(Editor’s note: This article was updated on June 17 to reflect a correction in the location of Joseph Kolchinsky’s property.)

The Planning Board voted unanimously to endorse the proposed Nature Link project at their June 10 meeting, echoing earlier actions by the Select Board, the Housing Commission, and the Historic District Commission.

“Lincoln will benefit considerably from this unique partnership,” the Planning Board said in a June 16 statement, noting that the town will “gain permanent protection of land long noted for its conservation value, the continuation in Lincoln of a unique nature program for urban youth, and a creative single-family housing village of mostly small homes that is aligned with Lincoln’s long-term planning vision.”

If the preliminary development and use plan for this project is approved at the Special Town Meeting on June 25, the developer (Civico) will still be required to submit a definitive plan, apply for a special permit, and go through site plan review by the Planning Board.

“The development of a neighborhood of 20 single-family homes, 17 of which are below the median size of single-family homes in Lincoln, including three with deeded income restrictions,” is in keeping with the Housing Commission‘s mission, the group said in a statement after their June 5 meeting. “This neighborhood provides much-needed new housing accessible to a range of households in a thoughtful, intentional and responsible manner.” The income-restricted units also ensure the proposed development maintains the town’s compliance under state 40B laws, they noted.

The Historical Commission likewise endorsed the project. Over the last century, “the town has followed a model of preserving open space that incorporates housing where the built form is subservient to nature and that opens the land to all through public trails,” the commission said in a statement.

The Farrington Memorial land has been farmed or used as a wooded sanctuary since the seventeenth century and is the site of the David Stone house dating from 1665, the group noted. The mission of the current occupant, Farrington Nature Linc, is to benefit residents of low-income communities by creating a connection with the natural world. “The project would allow Farrington to continue its historic mission on its historically important site” along with preserving the historic farm stand on the Panetta property, the HDC said.

On Sunday, June 15, some of those who have objected to the proposal (see “My Turn” pieces on May 29 and May 27) invited residents to an online meeting on Monday night to discuss their views. Almost 200 other residents urged approval in a June 8 “My Turn” piece, as did abutting Page Road resident Joseph Kolchinsky on May 29.

The Select Board voted on June 2 to formally endorse the Nature Link project on the Panetta/Farrington land with the following statement:

The Select Board believes this project will have a positive impact on Lincoln. It reflects the town’s core values, including conservation and thoughtful stewardship of our natural and built environments.

First, it conserves 77 acres of undeveloped land that have long been a part of the town’s open space plan. As the largest remaining parcel of unprotected land in town, preserving it represents a rare and significant opportunity. Funding will come from three sources: a contribution from the City of Cambridge to help protect its watershed, private contributions from Lincoln residents, and a $950,000 contribution from the town’s Community Preservation (CPA) fund. The board considers this a good investment of our CPA money.

Second, the community benefits from a wide variety of housing types. Each year, Lincoln loses moderately sized homes to demolition. This project will build 20 new detached family homes that share common land and amenities. Seventeen of the 20 will be three-bedroom homes between 1,650 and 2,000 square feet, and three will be four-bedroom homes of about 4,000-4,500 square feet. Three of the homes will be income-restricted, offering an opportunity for home ownership under an income-restricted model. Because the 20 homes will have common ownership of the land, they may not be torn down and replaced with large houses, keeping them moderately sized in perpetuity.

Third, Farrington NatureLinc’s mission is closely aligned with Lincoln’s values and vision statement. A deal that gives them the capital they need to stay on the property and introduce children to the wonder and magic of the natural world is in both their and the town’s best interests.
Finally, this opportunity for Lincoln would not be possible without the collaboration of multiple entities. The Panetta family wants to help conserve some of the land, including the farm stand that has been so important to them for multiple generations; Farrington is committed to fulfilling their mission and conserving their land; and the City of Cambridge is willing to partner with Lincoln once again to protect water quality. The project would not be possible without the Rural Land Foundation’s long-term commitment to Lincoln’s open space plan and its quiet persistence in listening to stakeholders, finding common ground, and making proposals like this possible.

For these reasons, we recommend that Lincoln voters approve the project at the June 25^th Special Town Meeting.

By Cindy Guo and John Li

I live at 96 Page Rd. Along with the residents of 99, 100, and 103 Page Rd., my family and I live immediately adjacent to the Panetta land, where a 20-unit high-density housing development is being proposed. All four of us spoke at the May 27 Planning Board meeting to express our deep concerns about the Nature Link project.

On the map below, our homes are marked with red crosses; Joseph [Kolchinsky]’s, by contrast, is marked with a yellow line. His house is located 2,000 feet away from the Panetta site. In contrast, my house is directly across the street; 103 Page Rd. shares a property line with the proposed development.

As direct abutters, we have been systematically excluded from RLF communications related to this project. Two of our households were never invited to any community meetings, and the other two only received a last-minute flyer for a neighborhood-wide event—distributed weeks after the Select Board had already scheduled a special town meeting at the request of Civico and RLF.

We sent an email outlining our concerns to the RLF chair on May 12, but we received no response. This stands in sharp contrast to the experience of the Farrington abutters, who live further down Page Road and on nearby streets. Many of them were informed about the deal well in advance of the public announcement and have had an ongoing dialogue with RLF board members.

This raises an important question: Why were we treated differently? The answer seems clear. The Farrington abutters benefit from the proposed conservation agreement, which would effectively lock in protection for their rear property lines. Meanwhile, they are far enough removed from the Panetta site to avoid the most significant negative impacts—construction, density, noise, traffic. As Joseph candidly stated at last night’s meeting, this deal gives him greater security against new housing behind his home than any wetland buffer could provide.

At Friday’s RLF meeting, my husband John asked why no alternative proposals had been considered. The executive director replied that housing had to be built somewhere and that “All parties have to make sacrifices.” When my husband asked Joseph how he could celebrate avoiding a single new neighbor while we will face 20, Joseph echoed the same sentiment: “We all have to compromise.” But this is not a fair or proportional compromise. It’s a burden placed disproportionately on a few households without their consent or inclusion.

We have found this process frustrating, disheartening, and at times even demeaning. But not everyone has turned a blind eye. We’ve spoken with many neighbors, including Farrington abutters, who have shown empathy, offered their support, and taken time to hear our concerns. For that, we are deeply grateful.

Everyone in Lincoln should care about this project—not just those who live nearby. First, Civico is again requesting nearly $1 million in taxpayer funding. This is after telling us last year they would never come back to the Town Meeting. They are acquiring the Panetta parcel at market value — re-zoned for far greater density than a private buyer would ever be permitted — and are also being granted several acres of Farrington land for free to install a septic system and additional housing. None of this would be possible without public subsidy.

Second, this sets a troubling precedent. If this rezoning succeeds, what’s to stop similar deals from being made elsewhere in town? Could your neighbor partner with RLF or another group to rezone and develop land next to your home?

We will continue to speak out against this flawed process and advocate for a fair and transparent solution. We hope many of you will stand with us.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.

By Joseph Kolchinsky

Hello neighbors. I live on Page Road and abut the Farrington land. Like some of you, I was skeptical of the Nature Link proposal at first. But after spending real time with the details, I now believe this is exactly the kind of thoughtful, balanced solution we need in Lincoln. It protects land, supports an important non-profit, adds needed housing, and most importantly it heads off far riskier alternatives. Below I’ve laid out the top concerns I’ve heard and why I believe this deal is the right move for our town. Happy to have thoughtful discourse and welcome open-minds to the conversation. As you read on, I ask that you think of a phrase often used in the nonprofit world: Things happen to you, for you, or because of you. 

As a community, if we want to move our missions forward and take advantage of this opportunity, we need to take proactive steps to pounce on this opportunity and make it happen because of us. No one is going to step in and do this work for us. And, if left to chance, alternative outcomes are likely to, happen to us, and they likely won’t be nearly as good as what I believe the Nature Link project achieves.

Top Reasons to Support the Nature Link Project

• Conservation at scale — 77 acres of ecologically valuable land will be permanently protected from future development, preserving forests, wetlands, and trail systems for generations. This is the largest undeveloped, forested, and unprotected area in Lincoln.
• Avoids Dover Amendment risk — By putting Farrington into conservation and giving Farrington financial stability, we substantially reduce the looming risk of institutional-scale development on that land under the Dover Amendment.
• Adds starter homes — 20 modest homes (replacing 3 existing, 17 net) provide much-needed “missing middle” housing stock, helping young families and downsizing seniors stay in Lincoln.
• Supports 40B compliance — Some units will be income-restricted, helping the town meet its Chapter 40B obligations.
• Secures Farrington’s future — This deal stabilizes a non-profit with a mission to connect under-resourced youth with nature, allowing them to continue their work and stay in Lincoln.
• New trails will be made permanently available to all Lincoln residents through the conservation land carved out by this deal.
• What’s good enough for Cambridge is good for us — While “no septic system” is better than any septic system, the City of Cambridge has the most to lose here given they depend on the clean watershed to protect the reservoir as their water source – and they fully support this plan and are putting $800k in to back it up. If the people drinking the water support this to mitigate future risk, I think we should be aware of that future risk and support mitigating it, too.
• Nominal traffic impact — Estimated traffic increase is ~5-10%, a nominal amount that doesn’t warrant the concern. See further below for my analysis on the numbers.
• Transparent, enforceable plan — This is a tightly structured, multi-party agreement with baked-in protections, approvals, and community oversight – not an open-ended blank check to a developer. Farrington’s land is put into conservation through deeds and Conservation Restrictions (CRs), the developer is locked into approved plans, and Farrington’s use of the access road to Page Rd expires upon any transfer of ownership so it can’t be used in the future by other parties.

As a direct neighbor to this project, I don’t take change lightly. I will see and feel the impacts of 17 new homes more than most. It would be easy for me to oppose any development next door. But I choose to support Nature Link because I firmly believe it’s the best path forward for our community as a whole. It’s a rare instance where the community as a whole gets something positive: Farrington gets the funds to sustain its nature programs, Lincoln gets permanently protected land and walking trails, a thoughtful developer gets to build much-needed starter homes, and new families get a chance to make Lincoln their home. I’m willing to support the greater good and, based on recent discussions, believe most of my Page Rd neighbors do as well.

No plan is perfect, and it’s okay to have questions and doubts. I’ve tried to address the major concerns with facts and respectful reasoning further below. Our town’s discourse can certainly get heated — but at the end of the day, I think we all share the same love for Lincoln and want to see it thrive without losing what makes it special. Nature Link is a compromise that achieves that, by blending conservation and smart growth in a way that enhances our community.

I invite everyone to look at the official documents, ask hard questions, and satisfy themselves on the details. From what I’ve seen, the more you dig, the more this deal holds up as sensible and forward-looking. I’ll be voting Yes at the Special Town Meeting on June 25, and I encourage my fellow residents to consider doing the same. Let’s seize this opportunity to protect a beautiful piece of Lincoln while also shaping a future we can be proud of – one where our children and new neighbors can enjoy the same natural beauty and community spirit that drew us all here in the first place.

For a comprehensive Q&A on this topic, please see this document. I will continue to keep it updated as I learn more. Thank you for reading, and I’m happy to discuss further with an open mind and mutual respect.

Joseph and Jennifer Kolchinsky live at 83 Page Rd.

“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.