*“You have been very disrespectful and I find this post extremely insulting and offensive. If you have something to say make your way over to my house and say it rather than hiding behind an email.”*
I have been trying to remain neutral about this development proposal and to really educate myself on all the benefits and drawbacks. However, this reply alone makes me want to vote against this entire proposal. The abutters to this project feel blindsided by a large scale proposal that the parties involved have been privately planning for multiple years. Yet, the abutters were only given a few short weeks to assess and respond to its significant impact on their community. They have raised valid questions and proposed reasonable, constructive solutions. At no point have they been disrespectful or accusatory to the Panetta family. While any property owner absolutely has the right to sell their property to the highest bidder, it is the neighboring residents who will have to bear the long-term consequences of that decision. I’m nearly certain that most of them never imagined this kind of development was even a possibility when they purchased homes in a district zoned for two-acre single-family residences, especially adjacent to a 75-acre nature preserve. These residents deserve to have their concerns heard and taken seriously—not dismissed, ignored, or bullied. -Sarah Postlethwait On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 11:43 AM Krista Panetta <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Klaus, > Quite honestly you have been a nuisance > to my family since you moved in. My father has done nothing but help you > out from the day you moved next door, the fact you are posting this is > actually really disturbing. My family has a right to do what they want to > do and need to do in order survive. > > You have been very disrespectful and I find this post extremely insulting > and offensive. If you have something to say make your way over to my house > and say it rather than hiding behind an email. > > That’s all. > > > > Please excuse typos sent from iPhone > > On May 25, 2025, at 10:50 PM, Klaus Dobler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear *Neighbors*, > > A *Special Town Meeting *will be held on *June 25*, where voters will > decide whether to rezone privately owned land into the *North Lincoln > Overlay District*—a move that would allow the *Nature Link Project* to > bypass Lincoln’s long standing zoning laws and build *20 homes on just 6 > acres*, with significant impact to our conservation land and our > neighbors. > > We believe every Lincoln resident deserves the full picture before casting > a vote. > > Here's what you need to know: > > 1. *No Public Input in Calling the Meeting* > > Normally, calling a Special Town Meeting requires* 200 resident > signatures*. While the Select Board has discretion to also call a town > meeting, in this case, they decided to call a meeting on behalf of a > private organization, the RLF, *without notifying a single abutter or > resident in the area*. After the meeting was already scheduled, > communication to the neighborhood has been minimal and misleading: > > ● Only *some* Page Road residents received a vague flyer. > ● That flyer promoted a “neighborhood meeting” but *did not disclose the > project’s full scope*. > ● Many residents only learned about the 20-house development at the April > 30 meeting—more than two weeks after it was approved by the Selects and *less > than two months before the vote*. > > If the project is truly good for Lincoln, *why secrecy*? > > 2. *The Developer: Civico and the Profits at Stake* > > This meeting mainly exists to *enable Civico Development* to bypass > zoning laws. They plan to: > > ● Build *17 new homes* and rebuild *3 existing homes*—20 in total—on a > site that under current zoning would allow* only 3. * > ● Avoid Lincoln’s zonings rule and increase density drastically. > > *Estimated revenue* (based on comparable sales in nearby towns): > > ● 14 homes x ~$1.2M = $16.8M ● 3 affordable homes x $0.4=$1.2M > ● 3 larger homes (4,000–4,500 sqft) x ~$2.6M = $7.8M > ●* Total: ~$25.8M * > > *Land cost to Civico? Just $3.3M*—roughly 13% of project value, far below > the 20–33% range typical in suburban development. > > Normally, developers must dedicate part of their purchased land for septic > systems, reducing the number of houses they can build. With this deal, > Civico avoids this entirely by using Farrington’s land for the septic > system, letting them maximize housing density (and profits) without > sacrificing a single square foot. > > *Why should Lincoln enable this private windfall? * > > *3. No-Bid Development: Why Civico Again? * > > This isn’t the first time Civico has been granted a no-bid, > developer-friendly deal in Lincoln: > ● *Oriole Landing,* the *Mall redevelopment*, and now *Nature Link* have > all followed this pattern. > ● *No competitive process was offered, despite millions in potential > profits. * > > Civico receives: > > *● Zoning exceptions● Public access to land for septic infrastructure * > ● *Publicly funded trails* which increase housing value > ● Below-market land prices > > In return, *Civico contributes very little*. If this project benefits > the town, *why not open it to other developers*? > > *4. Conservation Deal Tied to Development—Why? * > > The Nature Link project is being tied to a conservation agreement with the > *Farrington > property*. But the funding for conservation already exists—from: > ● The Town of Cambridge ● Private fundraising > ● The Town of Lincoln > > *So why bind it to housing? *Because: > > ● Civico can then *use land paid for by the town for septic systems* and > access roads, saving the developer money and increasing housing density. > ● This means *public conservation land is subsidizing private > development*, at no cost to Civico. > > Farrington’s land was meant for *preservation*, not as infrastructure > for a private developer. *This sets a troubling precedent.* > > 5. *The “$3M Gap” Myth * > RLF argues that if Civico doesn’t build these homes, the *$3M from the > Panetta land deal won’t materialize*, and the conservation effort will > collapse. But here’s the truth: > ● The “gap” exists *only because RLF linked two unrelated land > transactions*. > ● Panetta land, 6 upland acres with 3 homes, is worth *$3M+ on the open > market.* > ● Even without Civico, *other buyers or developers could step in*, > without needing zoning changes. > > RLF also claims Farrington needs a new access road via Panetta’s land, > but improving the existing Route 2 access would cost only* $250K* (based > on Farrington’s own prior estimates, adjusted for inflation). > > * A Flawed Deal—And a Better Path Forward * > > The proposed Farrington agreement represents a flawed compromise that > depends on the construction of *20 single-family homes.* > > To enable this development, the plan would: > ● *Clear-cut a forested section* of Farrington’s land, and > ● *Install a large-scale septic system*—serving all 20 homes—at the > property’s highest elevation. > > This elevated leach field would pose a *serious, long-term threat* to > the protected wetlands below, which form a tributary of the* Cambridge > watershed,* an ecologically sensitive and critical area. > > *A More Sustainable Alternative * > The good news: *these 20 homes do not need to be built*. Existing funding > is already sufficient to compensate Farrington for placing a conservation > restriction on their land. The sole justification for moving forward with > the Panetta purchase and related development is to provide Farrington with > improved access to Route 2. > > But there is a smarter, lower-impact alternative. > > According to a study commissioned by Farrington—and adjusted for > construction cost inflation—upgrading Farrington’s existing access point to > Route 2 would cost approximately $250,000. This would provide significantly > better access than Page Road and eliminate the need for environmentally > damaging housing construction. If *Cambridge and Lincoln each contributed > $1 million*—a modest increase over current commitments—they would more > than cover this access improvement and secure the conservation deal *without > new development.* > > *The Right Path Is Clear * > > This is a rare opportunity to do what’s right: > > *● Conserve valuable open space * > *● Protect the watershed * > *● Avoid irreversible ecological damage * > > And yet, the Rural Land Foundation (RLF) has returned to its familiar > playbook: *fear-based messaging*. “If we don’t act now,” they warn, > “Farrington will be clear-cut.” But these alarmist tactics have grown stale. > > Just last year, in the lead-up to the Housing Choice Act vote, the RLF > publicly stated that *Civico would never return to Town Meeting* seeking > project approval. Yet here we are, only a year later, facing that very > scenario. > > They also claimed that *unit density at the Mall project couldn’t be > reduced*—until they themselves introduced a late amendment at Town > Meeting, *before any resident had a chance to speak. * > > *It’s Time for Accountability * > > We can—and must—pursue a conservation strategy that *respects both the > environment and the community’s values.* The current proposal fails on > both counts. We urge residents to demand transparency, challenge false > choices, and support a solution that protects Lincoln’s future—without > sacrificing its integrity. > > *Why This Matters to Everyone in Lincoln * > Even if you’re not an abutter, *this precedent affects your neighborhood > too.* > > If zoning laws can be bypassed quietly once, *what’s to stop it from > happening again?* > > *Your Voice Matters.* > Attend the Special Town Meeting on June 25. > > Demand *transparency, fairness*, and *accountability* from our town > leaders. > > *Ask questions. Spread the word. Vote informed.* > > *Klaus and Iwona Dobler* > *John and Cindy Li* > *Dr. Jeff Sutherland and the Reverend Arline Sutherland* > -- > 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.
