The Panettas are a stand up, salt of the earth family. We fully support their right to sell their property.
Our note to LincolnTalks is a counterpoint to what the RLF has posted. The taxpayers of Lincoln deserve to hear other sides, have options and make up their minds. On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 11:17 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.
