Share This Article
Sudbury’s Liberty Ledge/Sewataro Advisory Committee met on Thursday, August 13 to continue discussion about options for the future use of the property.
Chair Dave Henkels opened up the discussion after a lengthy public comment period in which residents were given multiple opportunities to provide input. He suggested that the committee could start by identifying any options they would like to eliminate. That soon led to a motion and a unanimous vote to eliminate the sale of the whole property as an option.
From there, the committee discussed possibly eliminating any option that doesn’t include a camp on the property based on a suggestion from Granger Atkeson. In other words, committing to preserving a camp operation in all options they might recommend to the Select Board. Members of the committee had concerns that it might be premature to vote in favor of such an option, citing that it’s impossible to predict what the Town may or may not be dealing with in thirty or fifty years, and that they were still awaiting answers from Town Counsel regarding matters such as whether or not the Town can legally give a long-term lease to a camp operator. Virtually all the members appeared to agree that a camp operation was a benefit to the public, and also agreed that there’s more diligence to be done that will inform their exact recommendation regarding the camp.
Henkels later proposed eliminating the sale of any or all of the property for the development of market rate housing on the property. He concluded his comments with “In my simple opinion, I would eliminate that completely.” Member Radha Gargeya, who is also a member of the Select Board, agreed with Henkels. Members Kay Bell and Deborah Dineen didn’t agree with that suggestion.
Bell noted that the parcels along Greystone Lane were across the street from houses. She felt the potential need for market rate senior housing was a reason to “leave an opening” for development of select parcels, though was clear that she was not proposing that housing development be a recommendation to the Select Board. She also stated that if they were to vote on Henkels’ suggestion, she would likely be in the minority.
The parcels in question are on the bend in the road at the bottom of the below image:
Dineen added some historical context on the land and cited existing utilities that are already run to the parcels on that section of the property. She felt the parcels along Greystone Lane had the most development potential, noting “at some point the intent was to develop those lots.”
Dineen also added “I’m not saying we should develop it. And I would not want to see any kind of affordable housing in there.” She was also opposed to any development on any of the other parts of the property. However, she felt the whole town would be best served by keeping its options open on the upper parcels.
The build-ability of the Greystone parcels is still unknown, and committee members mentioned that the thick tree cover could be a significant obstacle to development, even for the camp operator; if that location was chosen for a lodge-type building or gym.
Atkeson shared his opposition to market rate housing, and didn’t think the wooded lots in question were a viable location due to the conservation considerations that he felt emerged after other houses were built on Greystone Lane. He felt the vacant lot on Haynes Road and utilization of the existing single-family home adjacent to it were the only viable housing opportunities on the land.
Member Jennifer Pincus also voiced opposition to market rate housing, and spoke about potential expansion of the camp. She felt market rate housing in the Greystone area would limit options for the camp to expand and serve more Sudbury children in the future.
The committee discussed locations where the camp operator might be able to build a four-season structure on the property from there, but had to move on to discussing the outline of their upcoming report due to time constraints.
The outcomes of the discussion include:
1) The committee has eliminated sale of the entire property from consideration by way of a unanimous vote
2) The majority of the committee (four of six members) voiced opposition to development of market rate housing anywhere on the property
3) The parcels on Greystone Lane are the only parcels where a minority of the committee wanted to keep options open for market rate development, but not affordable housing
4) None of the committee members proposed development of any kind as a recommendation to the Select Board, including the members who wanted to keep development options open on the Greystone Lane parcels
The committee will meet again on August 27. They are still awaiting results of the survey they issued to the community, and they discussed collecting public input on a draft of their report before finalizing it for the deadline at the end of October.
