Share This Article
The State of Massachusetts is in the midst of what many call a housing crisis. But what exactly is the crisis? Some point to affordability concerns. Others to the shortage of housing units. Just last week USA Today published a story titled: ‘The civil rights issue of our generation’? A battle over housing erupts in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth’s businesses are pointing to the impact of the housing shortage on their workforces. Yet others point to how the affordability crisis locks renters into poorly maintained units.
However one chooses to characterize the nature and cause of the crisis, one thing is clear: it’s a big enough crisis that it’s creating a ripple effect through other facets of society, be it public health or the competitiveness of Bay State businesses.
While the Healey administration has prioritized investments into housing solutions, the State has also called upon municipalities to be part of the solution. The MBTA Communities legislation compelled cities and Towns to make zoning changes to allow high-density housing by right. While some towns have opted to challenge the legislation, Sudbury passed an article at Annual Town Meeting in 2024 to bring the Town into compliance with that legislation. While Sudbury is technically in compliance, it found a loophole of sorts, and it is unlikely to lead to the development of any additional units in Sudbury.
The controversy around the legislation is far from over. On Monday, the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in a suit brought by the Attorney General against the Town of Milton for its failure to comply with the legislation. Many municipalities around the state are watching closely.
Back in Sudbury, the legislation has become old news, but new housing debates are cropping up for a number of boards and committees.
To Duplex or Not to Duplex?
Perhaps the most prominent housing controversy in Sudbury is the Sudbury Housing Authority’s proposal to convert four of their existing single-family units into duplexes. Three of those units are in the Pine Lakes neighborhood, and some residents there have voiced their opposition to that project. Recently, an opponent of the duplex project held signs in Town center while dressed like the fictional serial killer Jason from the Friday the 13th movie series.
Opponents in Pine Lakes have primarily argued that their neighborhood is already among the most densely-settled in Sudbury, while the Town owns many other parcels of land where units could be built without adding significant density. Others have raised objections to the cost of the Housing Authority’s plan.
While the Pine Lakes neighborhood is subject of one housing controversy, the Town’s five-year housing strategy, known as the Housing Production Plan, has quickly become a source of disagreement, even as the plan is still in draft form. The two matters are separate, but do not exist in complete isolation.
Local Control
On Tuesday, October 8, the Sudbury Select Board hosted a joint meeting with the Sudbury Planning Board to provide comments on the draft Housing Production Plan (HPP). While the meeting agenda had anticipated a possible vote to approve the plan, no such vote was taken. In fact, major components of the plan were called into question by several participants in the meeting.
The Planning Board’s comments largely focused on their desire to establish more control over duplexes in Sudbury. As one example, they felt the Town’s existing bylaws provided them with too little leverage to control when a developer opts to adjust course on a proposed single family unit and develops duplexes instead. Meanwhile, Strategy 2B in the HPP called for allowing duplexes “by right” in Sudbury. (Page 32) That could further reduce the Town’s control over such units, even if it helped deliver on the HPP’s vision to diversify Sudbury’s housing options.
It was unclear if, at least in part, the Sudbury Housing Authority’s proposal for Pine Lakes was driving the comments. But the exchange was reminiscent of a wide variety of housing discussions in which municipalities are trying to exert local control while the State pushes to accelerate housing production and increase density.
The draft HPP took bigger bruises from members of the Select Board on Tuesday night. Member Charlie Russo questioned why certain parcels of land, including Broadacres Farm on Morse Road, were included as “developable land” for housing in the HPP. Member Dan Carty argued that he felt some of the Town’s land acquisitions were done with the express intent of preventing the development of housing, and voiced his displeasure that they were now being considered as housing locations in the HPP.
The parcels at Broadacres and Sewataro have been subject of their own contentious debates over the years. But the HPP discussions put a new spin on them.
There’s already a Town-owned single family home at Broadacres on Morse Road, as well as septic and two other structures. Those structures have been vacant and unused since they were acquired by the Town roughly half a decade ago. Other than the addition of a parking lot for the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail and the demolition of some dilapidated barn structures, little has been done with the Broadacres land since the acquisition.
Member Russo referenced the results of a Broadacres design charrette and a survey in 2019 which captured resident input on future uses of the property. He cited how many responded to a survey to say they did not want to see housing on the property. That input makes matters more complicated, even if it isn’t binding. But the HPP doesn’t contemplate a major housing development at Broadacres — only to restore and renovate the existing structures:
“This property is associated with Broadacre. The property has existing septic and several existing structures which could be restored and renovated for affordable housing. The property is an eleven-minute walk from the Lower Featherland Park and Nixon Elementary School. Sudbury Town Hall, goods and services are a twenty minute walk from the property.”
HPP — Page 42
Sewataro is likely the more complicated piece of land contemplated in the HPP, and Select Board Member Dretler pointed to some of the lesser-known details about the land. There are already six housing units on the property, but the property is subject to a license agreement with a camp operator who runs Camp Sewataro and manages the land. Those housing units are currently reserved for the use of the camp, or can be offered rent-free to Camp Sewataro employees as a “benefit of employment,” as outlined in the contract:
In that sense, the Town already owns a half dozen dwelling units which are effectively 100% subsidized housing on Town-owned land at Sewataro, but they are managed and maintained outside of any formal housing group or program, and through a private business partner instead. It’s unclear how each of those units are currently being used and they do not qualify as part of Sudbury’s subsidized housing inventory.
As Dretler brought up on Tuesday, the Town also owns and rents out the historic Haynes Meadow house off Peakham Road. That brings the total to eight Town-owned housing units in combination with Broadacres and Sewataro. In addition to the perhaps surprising inventory of Town-owned housing units, the Town also has a “Rental Property Revolving Fund” which captures the rent from rental properties and sets it aside for future maintenance. (Page 22) This is all separate and independent from the work and purview of the the Sudbury Housing Authority.
Adam Burney, Sudbury’s Director of Planning and Community Development, explained on Tuesday that certain parcels, including Sewataro, were added to the HPP as a result of strong feedback from the Sudbury Housing Trust after they conducted their review of an earlier draft of the HPP. Those conversations date back to April of this year, when members of the Housing Trust made similar arguments: there are already underutilized housing units on these properties, in some cases the land has already been studied for development, so how could they not be considered for the HPP?
Modest Goals
The conversation on Tuesday meandered a bit, but a key point was made by Burney when asked about goals. Sudbury is already safe from “hostile” 40B developments because it has met State requirements for subsidized units. As the HPP states:
“Communities above the 10 percent requirement have greater local control over affordable housing developments by requiring local zoning. When a community is above the 10 percent requirement, the decisions on comprehensive permit applications by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to deny or approve with conditions will be deemed “consistent with local needs” under MGL Chapter 40B.”
Page 82
Given that fact, Member Carty asked about measurable goals, and Burney pointed out that all the Town is really looking to do is create one affordable unit for every 10 new units built in town in order to preserve its safe harbor at 10%+ subsidized housing inventory.
“Dan, it sounds like the heart of your concern is the lack of a numerical metric or a measurable goal. And I get that. And it’s a harder thing to do when you’re at the 10% to say we need to create this many houses. Because what we’re trying to do now is we’re trying to create one affordable unit for every ten units that we create otherwise. And if it’s a matter of including that type of language, we can certainly look at that. That’s what our inclusionary bylaw does at a minimum. So we have the metric to do that, and for me this plan, a lot of the other, I’ll call them the soft strategies, the zoning, the kumbaya of getting the Housing Trust and the Housing Authority getting to be synchronous in the way they approach things, is the heart of this plan.”
(1:07:00)
In theory, the existing inventory of Town-owned houses could maintain the ratio if converted into qualifying subsidized housing in tandem with the development of another roughly 80 units of regular housing.
But that hypothetical buries the lede: there’s no goal to significantly increase the subsidized housing inventory in Sudbury in the HPP. If the Town merely maintains safe harbor, it can determine its own fate, or in other words: maximize local control. The HPP has four overarching goals, one of which states: “Maintain the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) at ten percent.” (Page 27) The other three goals include:
- “Meet mixed housing needs”
- “Promote Housing in Mixed-Use Locations, Preserve Affordable Homes, and Ensure Transportation Access”
- “Greening homes”
Are You Down With The HPP?
Members Russo and Carty were clear in their positions during the discussion. They indicated that they were unlikely to vote to support the HPP unless changes are made. Both the Select Board and the Planning Board have to vote to approve the HPP before it can be submitted for certification.
Russo appeared to have a focus on getting certain parcels, including Broadacres, off the list of parcels deemed “developable land” in the next 1-5 years in the HPP. Developable land is labeled as “7A” in the document. (Page 40) “7B” refers to parcels that would require significant study before considering development.
“I’d like to stick back to the 7A properties as originally labeled with the fire station and Frost Farm and move the rest down to 7B. I think that’s something I’m comfortable moving forward on. But I think, absent that change, I’m not sure I’m comfortable moving forward with this.” (59:00)
Member Dretler later raised concern that Russo may not want to comment, and should consider recusing, on the Broadacres land as she thought he was an abutter. (1:21:35) There appeared to be some confusion about whether the land with the structures was it’s own parcel or part of of the larger parcel across the street. The Town GIS map does indicate that it’s one parcel, as does the Town Assessors Webpro system, which uses the same parcel identification number and describes it as a 24.018 acre piece of land, which includes the larger piece of land and the piece with the house. However, the land has been casually described as three distinct parcels as far back as the Purchase and Sale agreement, even though two of the parcels had the same parcel identification number in that document.
Carty was also direct:
“I don’t want to keep getting into this position where we’re working against each other without having any measurable goals, and continuing to try to build housing on parcels that were bought so that housing wasn’t built.” (1:05:30)
Carty went on to question the level and nature of resident participation in the HPP process and concluded:
“Again, until we get some type of measurable metric that we can measure success off of, I can’t support this.”
That put the conversation into focus. While the HPP doesn’t seek to significantly increase Sudbury’s subsidized housing inventory, it does contemplate incremental development on parcels of land that have a history of controversy.
Planning Director Burney made it clear that town staff would have no problem with following Russo’s suggestion to move multiple parcels from “developable” classification to “study parcels.” That created a clear impression that the fate of the HPP hinge more upon the location of subsidized housing than the volume of subsidized housing it would create.
It remains unclear when the HPP might be finalized. Steve Garvin, chair of the Planning Board, added some closing comments about what might come next: “I think the Planning Board would like some more time to think about this, bring Julie onboard, and I think at this point we will discuss it at our next meeting with Adam. We’ve heard some good input I think from everyone here and I think we’re ready to adjourn.” (1:38:00)
And with that, the HPP is going back to various committees for further discussion.