Share This Article
The Healey-Driscoll administration may soon find itself balancing competing priorities in Sudbury. Following the announcement of the new crime lab being built in Marlborough, Sudbury residents learned that the Sudbury lab would be closed, and the jobs relocated. But the administration has said nothing about what it will do with the property once the operation is moved to Marlborough.
That silence led to some speculation during a recent meeting of the Sudbury Housing Trust (SHT). The SHT is responsible for the creation of affordable housing for ownership in Sudbury and has been tracking the developments at the crime lab property, which is managed by the State’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM).
“So while the Town may have desires for it or uses for it, it will likely be an open bid for private buyers.”
During discussion, members brought up concerns that the property could be sold off to the highest bidder, which would generate the most income for the State. Member John Riordan questioned if the State could be taken seriously in its efforts to address the housing crisis if it were to prioritize maximizing the sale price when there’s local interest to build affordable housing. He told the members:
“I just wanted to go on record saying that if the State wants us to take seriously the thought that we’ve got a housing crisis in this state, someone should tell DCAMM (Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance). Because if DCAMM’s only interest is ‘get us the best, highest fair market value we can in an appraisal’ rather than saying ‘here’s something that’s surplus property the State already owns and we can use it and donate it.’ I don’t mean totally free, but at something way below fair market value. A developer can come in there and say ‘I can build three 4,000 square foot homes on that property at almost $2 million a piece.’ Then I don’t want to hear from the administration that ‘oh we really think we need to do something about housing.'”
SHT chair, and Sudbury’s State Representative, Carmine Gentile told the members that the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM), which would decide the fate of the property, is aware that there is interest in Sudbury to develop affordable housing on the crime lab property. He also told Riordan that the Healey administration has been working collaboratively with municipalities to develop housing in similar contexts across the state, and expressed optimism about the potential to work together.
“There is a spirit in the Healey administration to have DCAMM work with communities for affordable housing.”
However, comments from Sudbury’s Director of Planning and Community Development, Adam Burney, highlighted the complexity of the situation.
“DCAMM will talk with the town, but my experience is they’re going to ask us to pay what they think market value is. And more realistically they’re going to be going to bid for this. So while the Town may have desires for it or uses for it, it will likely be an open bid for private buyers.”
He went on to add that DCAMM is looking for housing opportunities with the sale of State properties, but the Town would probably need to negotiate an affordable component to the RFP that DCAMM eventually puts out.
Local Control?
The Healey administration has launched the “State Land for Homes” initiative which, according to the administration, is “expediting the availability of public land throughout the Commonwealth specifically for housing development as part of the Healey-Driscoll Administration’s multi-dimensional approach to addressing the Commonwealth’s housing needs.”
Yet that program opens another can of worms that is not dissimilar from the controversy that swirled around the MBTA Communities Act. In short, State Land for Homes, which is born from sections 121 and 122 of the Affordable Homes Act, fast-tracks housing projects and bypasses local zoning and controls.
Guidance from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Community (EOHLC) makes it very clear that, should the crime lab property be put into the State Land for Homes program administered by Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM), Sudbury will have very little local control beyond a limited site plan review.
That guidance explicitly states “DCAMM will endeavor to provide as much advance notice as possible to affected municipalities. After this public comment period, DCAMM may dispose of the property using a competitive process such as a request for proposals or an auction. Housing development may be single or multi-family, rental or owned.”
While there is a 30-day public comment period required in the process, EOHLC is very clear in their initial guidance:
Section 122 of the AHA limits a municipality’s ability to control the permitting of housing developed on Surplus Land conveyed through DCAMM’s streamlined process and provides that EOHLC may promulgate regulations to implement the section. EOHLC is planning to promulgate regulations at a later date to further assist communities and administer Section 122’s implementation.
Section 122 also requires that municipalities allow at least four units per acre when projects are advanced using the State Land for Homes process. The crime lab property is 8.8 acres in a residential zone according to Sudbury’s GIS map. In theory that’s enough land for roughly three-dozen units under the AHA, but a significant portion of the property is wetlands.
While it remains unclear what percent of the land is buildable, the AHA protects construction of multiple housing types, some of which may allow for a large number of units: “Housing development may be single or multi-family, rental or owned.”
While much is still up in the air, one thing is clear: the State is calling the shots.
Staying Ahead
Gentile told the SHT that it would be important be proactive about the property. Alternatives to the property going out to open bidding under the State Land For Homes program could include the Town finding a developer to partner with relevant housing groups and negotiate a deal with DCAMM. Gentile pointed out how that type of public-private cooperation was the key to the Meadow Walk development in Sudbury.
One alternative to open bidding, described by Liz Rust, the Director of the Regional Housing Services Office, was for the Town to pull the money together to buy the property from the State. She cited a recent example in Bedford where the Town negotiated a sale price and purchasing a property before it ever went out to bid.
Several members of the SHT voiced a desire to be as proactive as possible and to stay ahead of any developments or decisions made by the State. By the end of the discussion, it sounded like there were four paths the property could go down in the next year:
- Open bidding to private buyers through the DCAMM process, and virtually no local control or involvement
- Sudbury acquires the property outright and has full control, along with (likely) debt payments and another building to maintain
- Sudbury partners with a developer around a shared vision for the property and negotiates with the State in order to influence what is ultimately done with the property
- Sudbury engages with DCAMM to provide input to the RFP, which could lead to a private project that is more preferable than the alternatives for Sudbury, but still well outside of Sudbury’s control
All of the options have their flaws from a local planning perspective. Even in a scenario where the Town of Sudbury acquires the property for a favorable price, it’s a property that the Town previously sold to the State for just $170,000 in the 1980’s. It’s now assessed to be worth over three million dollars according to the Town of Sudbury GIS map data, making any re-acquisition an exercise in “sell low and buy high.”
State Problem, State Solution?
Sudbury’s planner Adam Burney told the SHT that the good news is there’s some time to work through the issues with the State. They still have to build the new lab in Marlborough, then transfer operations from the Sudbury and Maynard facilities. Any real movement on the situation could be a couple years out.
For all the time available, there’s also the chance that State priorities change in the years ahead. Governor Healey is running for reelection in 2026, so there’s even the potential for a change of administration before any decisions are made about the property.
That could mean that Sudbury’s legislative delegation will be the key to ensuring a positive outcome for Sudbury. Representative Gentile has publicly discussed the crime lab as far back as a July SHT meeting, and was still optimistic about the opportunity to collaborate with the administration in the latest SHT meeting.
Senator Jamie Eldridge noted in a recent Facebook post “I am also working with the town of Sudbury where the current crime lab is located, to get a better understanding of how the vacant property will be disposed of.”
That’s good news for residents who want to maximize local influence on DCAMM, but it may require a very delicate, diplomatic touch over the coming years, because DCAMM has virtually zero legal obligation to engage with Sudbury during the sale process.
[Feature image: State of Massachusetts]