Share This Article
Claims of a Plot to Build High-Density Affordable Housing Appear to Have Been Hot Air
The July 30 meeting of Sudbury’s Liberty Ledge/Sewataro Advisory Committee (LLSAC) was noteworthy not because of the acrimony circulating regarding the committee’s recently-issued survey. Instead, it was noteworthy because the committee’s initial ideas for future uses of the property were nothing like the rumors, speculation and assigned motives from residents on social media and in recent public comments.
Pre-Meeting Drama
The Town had shared the survey via its Facebook page prior to the meeting last week, and it quickly received critical comments lobbying accusations of bias in favor of housing, dishonesty and other disparaging comments towards the LLSAC and the Select Board. One speculated “I wonder whether this survey was created by the consultant whom voters explicitly declined to fund with $20,000 in taxpayer money at Special Town Meeting. The Town Manager then “found” the $20,000 elsewhere and proceeded with exactly what voters had rejected. Democracy in action?”
That comment appears to be referring to Article 19 at Sudbury’s Annual Town Meeting in May of 2026, not the Special Town Meeting that was held that same month. There were only four articles on the warrant for the Special Town Meeting. Notably, the LLSAC live-edited the survey in their July 23 meeting — a clear indication that the survey was the work of the committee and Town staff, not an outside consultant.
The process of editing the survey took 2.5 hours from start to finish during the July 23 meeting. It is embedded below.
If the survey contributed to anxieties about affordable housing construction, it was likely because the Sudbury Housing Trust had recently told the LLSAC that they wanted to explore the potential of some parcels on the property for the construction of affordable units. What happened at the July 30 meeting of the LLSAC would, in theory, assuage those concerns. But that’s not what unfolded.
Much Ado About Nothing?
During the July 30 meeting, LLSAC members reviewed initial ideas they had submitted for future uses of the property. One thing was notably absent: any interest in housing development on the property. In fact, every single idea surfaced in the initial batch of ideas either explicitly or implicitly supported preservation of the Camp Sewataro operation on the property. Multiple ideas shared by members included pursuing a long-term lease or an extension with the camp operator.
The general theme across all of the ideas was 1) keep the camp 2) expand programming options in the other 10 months of the year and 3) evaluate potential for added infrastructure and amenities that could support expanded programming and/or enhanced camp operations.
Here’s the breakdown of the 13 ideas submitted by committee members ahead of their July 30 discussion:
1 – Additional programming + preserve camp
2 – Additional amenities + preserve camp
3 – Preserve camp, expanding access to camp infrastructure for expanded programming/activities
4 – Increased programming
5 – Preserve camp, explore long-term lease, evaluate feasibility of a four-season structure
6 – Extend contract with operator, long-term if possible
7 – 5-year extension with expanded number of campers
8 – Do not seek a 30 year lease, as that ties up the use of a property that is otherwise flexibly designated for “general municipal purposes”, but keep the camp operation
9 – Use the house on Haynes Road as an affordable housing unit, keep it single family
10 – Eliminate any consideration of construction of new affordable housing on the property
11 – Eliminate any consideration of sale of the property for market rate housing
12 – Formalize property maintenance agreement in contract with camp operator
13 – Find a way for the camp to accept all Sudbury children before taking children from other towns
The full descriptions start on page 44 below.
LLSAC members effectively expressed zero interest in the construction of affordable housing, while some fiercely opposed it. One member was hesitant to support construction of new facilities of any type on the property in order to preserve the natural spaces. “This option focuses more specifically on “grounds” rather than additional constructed facilities (such as an enclosed lodge or gym type of space), and preserves the existing “undeveloped” land as parkland that is developed only inasmuch as it would provide for park activities such as picnics, nature walks, community gatherings and entertainment, gardens and other nature uses.”
The member that proposed eliminating any consideration of new housing on the property itemized their argument:
“Elimination is further supported by:
- Development of any type of housing is questionable. Slopes, bedrock, stormwater infiltration ability, compatibility for septic systems are all very real concerns based on my research and town board answers to some of the committee’s questions.
- Public comment has overwhelmingly rejected affordable housing at Liberty Ledge.”
False and misleading posts continued on social media even after the July 30th meeting, including many that doubled down on the claim that there’s an effort to sell the property for housing. One commenter said “Can anyone tell me why it seems the powers [that] be in Sudbury are hell bent on parceling off and selling Sewataro?”
A Facebook post on August 3 claimed that housing development on the upper portion of the land would inhibit “expansion of the Camp to address child care needs in Sudbury, and will restrict the momentum of weaving accessibility into recreation.” What it didn’t mention, was that the LLSAC members repeatedly called for preserving and even expanding Camp Sewataro at their last meeting, and voice no interested in construction of housing on the property.
One idea submitted by an LLSAC member noted “Initial fact gathering has indicated that residents find value in the camp for their children, and that the camp operators have been very good neighbors and have maintained the property in excellent condition. They have indicated that a long term lease is desirable to them and would allow them to make larger and long-term investments in its infrastructure. We have learned that not all 44 acres of the Liberty Ledge property have been developed for use by Camp Sewataro, so there is potential for expansion.”
There was clear alignment between the LLSAC’s initial ideas and the public input. Many members explicitly mapped their ideas directly back to the specific public input they have received during this process. The LLSAC is not going to make any decisions about the property, but if the initial brainstorm accomplished anything, it sent a clear signal that they are following the public and professional input they have received to generate their recommendations.
The LLSAC recommendations to the Select Board are not due until October, and results from the survey that irked some residents won’t be in for many weeks, so much could still change in the sprint to their deadline. To make matters more difficult, the committee will have to do it’s work in an environment where rumors and reality are increasingly at odds.
