To the editor:

The recent letter in the Lincoln Squirrel from Mr. Pease—a proponent of the current design for the First Parish building project who has been part of the team advancing the application though the permitting process—is deeply disconcerting, and it raises questions regarding what values and commitment to the community are reflected by such a letter.

The letter takes issue with previous letter writers and the Flints for raising objections to the First Parish building project, makes assertions about requirements for handicapped accessibility that strain credulity, misstates facts about the progress of the project through the permitting process, and ignores the fact that many have been taken by surprise with the actual design, given the promises made to the congregation in 2008—promises not kept. And why should the breach of faith with the Flint family matter to the town?

It was the Flint family who, in the 1600s, first settled in what we now know as Lincoln. It was the Flint family that gave land to create the first meeting house and church that allowed us to be recognized as a town in 1754. It was the Flints who led the way in land stewardship, placing the bulk of their very valuable fields in our historic center in permanent conservation, forgoing the large profits that could have been made by the sale of this valuable real estate. And it was a gift from the Flints that allowed a walkway between the First Parish’s two properties and enabled the church to construct the proposed addition. That gift was made assuming the representations presented to them in 2001 had meaning, and that what would be built and what would reflect those representations would be preserved as a result of their gift.

It has been the Flints who have served the town on boards and committees for generations. The Flints have been major contributors of time, resources and talent to the entire community, not just the First Parish community, for 11 generations. It might be said that they are, literally, the first family of Lincoln. They came before any of us, and, I hazard to guess, will remain long after we are gone. They have been the family that has kept core values of caring for community (the entire community) and land in the fore. They have led by example and we all have been the beneficiaries.

It should be noted that all that the Flints have called for (recently reiterated by Ephraim Flint in the Lincoln Squirrel) in fact was promised in the 2008 report from the Building Committee in “The Parish News” (Vol. 45 #8, Sept. 24, 2008). The Flints and many others expected church leadership to honor these promises and assurances. When they were not, the Flints and others raised objections that continue today.

We as a larger community have a right to celebrate and a responsibility to preserve and protect the “sacred space” that is our historic center. It was created to serve all, not just a few. Generations of Flints have fully understood this and today, as in the past, remind us of the need to think of stewardship for the whole. None should be subjected to ridicule and mockery when we question and openly and respectfully express disagreement with each other about the meaning of stewardship for the whole. Does such intolerance for civil debate best reflect the values of a church or our community?

The 200+ year-old tree that will be felled to make room for the proposed addition cannot be restored. But more important are the human relationships that have been damaged in this process. Let us hope that the new church leadership can find ways to restore the relationships and mutual respect within the church community, between the town and the church, and certainly with those who were so instrumental in giving birth and nurturing our wonderful town—the Flints.

Sincerely,

Sara Mattes
71 Conant Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

To the editor:

I believe most people, who have issues with the design proposed by the First Parish Building Committee for an addition to the White Church, are not “opposing the proposed new Stearns Room” project. There are legitimate concerns about specifics of the design that for the most part, have not been addressed in the many meetings with the town boards over the last 18 months. The white church in the historic district at our town’s center is classic New England. Any addition to that structure needs to be sensitive to the beauty of this special building.

I have attended most of those meetings and have not heard one comment voiced against the need for handicapped accessibility. The need for handicap accessibility is not at issue. There are however, several design issues that trouble me deeply. Last Sunday evening I stood on the library lawn watching the re-enactment of the April 18th mustering of the Minutemen. I could see over the roof of the Stearns Room, through the trees to the fading, evening light. The height of the proposed roof will be over 5 feet higher than the existing Stearns Room roof. Lowering the roof somewhat would not impact the prominence of the handicapped-accessible entrance planned for that façade. There are other design features such as the tin roof and the amount of glass that could be modified in a way to better protect the sanctuary without affecting the goals of handicapped accessibility and function.

In 2000, my brother Warren and I met with a representative of the First Parish Church to discuss a purchase of land by the First Parish sufficient to support an addition to the Stearns Room built in 1960. That original Stearns Room was designed with a philosophy of modest design and scale to protect the original 1842 building. It was our clear understanding that the addition would be designed with the same considerations in mind. Warren marked a parcel sufficient to support the project as described and the family decided to make a gift of this land. The plan that appears to be in the final stages of approval is not consistent with the understanding that the Flints had with the church at the time of the gift. I have been attending the meetings between the church building committee and the town boards and have tried to articulate the issues with the design that I believe will have a negative impact on the old sanctuary in historic center, the conservation field behind the church and the neighborhood. With one exception, a slight lifting of the window sills, there have been no compromises.

I feel that the trust between the First Parish Church and the Flint family has been lost, but far more importantly, I feel that the “Lincoln way” of decision-making—one characterized by the inclusion of different ideas and compromise—has been abandoned in this process.

Sincerely,

Ephraim Flint (trustee, Flint Realty Trust)

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

To the editor:

I fully understand and appreciate the First Parish may want to upgrade the Stearns Room to enhance after-service socializing and improve handicapped access. However, it is not clear why the Building Committee has adopted an adversarial approach to the process—one which antagonizes Lincoln neighbors near and far, divides the congregation, threatens lawsuit, disrespects certain town boards and alienates long-term benefactors.

[Read more…] about Letter to the editor: concern about church committee’s “adversarial approach”

(Editor’s note: This letter concerns the proposed expansion to the First Parish Church’s Stearns Room. The Planning Commission has continued a hearing on details of the plan, including the roofing material, until April 28. The church has already won zoning approval for the proposal.)

To the editor:

Are there no alternative treatments for expansion of this addition than the one proposed? A metal roof seems more appropriate on a contemporary structure than on the current historic church building even though it might have some energy-saving or environmental benefits. [Read more…] about Letter to the editor: How big is too big for Stearns Room?

To the editor:

The recent flurry of letters opposing the proposed new Stearns Room paints quite a picture—how dare those First Parish people desecrate our sacred space! The low-pitched sections of the roof will be metal, there’s a terrace, and glass windows without shutters! It will be bigger than it is now, and part of the roof will be higher!

Guess what? If we are to make the presently dysfunctional space work, it has to be bigger, and that has been the plan since 2002. We have done our best to design a complementary, respectful addition, revising the plans at least five times in the past six years. Our first visit to the Historic District Commission was in September 2009, with a modern, butterfly-roofed design. Much has changed since then, and architects give the plan high praise.

The letter writers ignore the fact that the new building must have a welcoming handicapped-accessible entrance co-equal to the entrance by Bedford Road. If it does not, the sanctuary itself would require substantial renovation, with a wide ramp to the front door, alterations to the pews, the narthex, the choir loft and more. No one wants that.

The new building will have handicapped-accessible bathrooms and allow wheelchair access to both sides of the sanctuary. It will allow more of us to talk together after the service and to see the field to the west behind us. The new building will be far more functional and attractive and allow us to better serve the community.

Sincerely,

Peter Pease
40 Huckleberry Hill Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to news@lincolnsquirrel.com. Letters must be about a Lincoln-specific topic, will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.