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.
Leave a Reply