Share This Article
Each year, the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) reviews applications for projects related to housing, open space and recreation, and historical preservation. Their job is to vet the projects, then make decisions on which projects should go forward as Town Meeting warrant articles. If the articles are passed at Town Meeting, they get funding from the Community Preservation Act funds, which are a combination of a local tax surcharge, a State match, and reserves that generate interest.
On Wednesday, the CPC had one primary mission: to compile questions from committee members about this year’s applications. Town staff will send those questions to the applicants, who can provide more information before the next meeting of the CPC. The applications are available here.
The tone of the discussion was a bit different this year. Many of the questions appeared to be rooted in skepticism about the applicants, and at times harsh criticism was lobbed at projects approved in prior years. In many cases, committee members wanted a comprehensive accounting of related or unrelated projects from prior years.
Two things were apparent by the end of the meeting. First, while the CPC already had a reputation for thoroughly vetting applications, this year’s applicants better be prepared to be put through a gauntlet if they want the support of the committee.
Second, the CPC hearings may become a new front line for a growing battle over affordable and housing in Sudbury. Here’s a running summary of their discussions on the housing-related applications:
Housing Authority Allocation
Residents from the Pine Lakes neighborhood were in attendance for this meeting, as this application, if approved, would provide funding to a Sudbury Housing Authority duplex project that some neighbors oppose. However, there was no public comment put on the agenda. They were told they will have to wait until the public hearings to comment, which did not seem to sit well in the room. This was the second meeting in two weeks when Pine Lakes residents showed up to a public meeting to engage in housing discussions and missed an opportunity to comment due to committee procedure.
Some neighbors also wanted to comment during the October 8 joint meeting of the Select Board and Planning Board, but public comment was at the top of the Select Board meeting, not during the agenda items, which is their standard practice. (1:42:40) The Select Board did discuss adding time for public comment associated with the Housing Production Plan at a future meeting. While many Town committees limit public comment to a specific time in their meeting agendas, others will accept public comment throughout the meeting.
The discussion during the CPC meeting, or lack thereof, seemed to add to the frustration for Pine Lakes residents in attendance to share concerns about the duplex project. CPC member Dan Carty wanted more details on the maintenance history of the existing houses. No other specific questions were put forward by the committee, and no further discussion ensued. There was some grumbling in the background, and one attendee walked out in apparent disbelief.
Housing Trust Allocation + Housing Trust Appropriation
The Housing Trust is largely tasked with creating affordable ownership units. Both applications are for funds that would assist them in creating new units that can be converted into owner-occupied units, not rentals. They are returning funds from a prior CPA funds appropriation to study the potential for construction of units on a Nobscot Road property, and asking for those to essentially be re-appropriated so they can pursue other routes of creating new units.
Member Carty also wanted more information on how owner-occupied units are maintained, going so far to ask about the status of a specific unit. It was explained that the units are maintained by the homeowners after they buy them, though there are some Housing Trust programs available to assist qualifying residents with the costs of home maintenance.
Things turned tense when Member Carty criticized last year’s appropriation for the Nobscot study. He said the money was thrown away, and wanted a full accounting of what was spent on the study, not just from the CPA appropriation, but from any other sources available to the Housing Trust and Housing Authority. (1:19:20)
“I would like to see an accounting of that project. For the project, how much money was spent on that project, right, and whatever the line item sources are. It’d be helpful to know how much money we essentially just threw away.”
Chair Sherrill Cline defended the merits of the study and questioned why an accounting of the project was needed.
“Well, no, we didn’t throw it away. We were investigating a possible housing site. I mean, it didn’t work out, but it wasn’t thrown away. It was an investigation of a potential housing site”
Member Carty interrupted with a quip:
“It was an investigation of a potential house on a piece of property that is both ledge and wet. I don’t even know geologically how that’s possible, but it is. I would like to know how much money did we spend?”
For context, about $11,000 was spent from the CPA appropriation according to Town staff, though some amount was allegedly also spent from the reserves of the Housing Authority and Housing Trust to study the property. The vast majority of the prior CPC appropriation is being returned since it was determined that construction on the Nobscot parcel was not feasible.
Member Carty demanded a full accounting of the project from Town staff. Staff said they would do their best, and noted some amount of challenge with having to go to multiple different groups to get the data. Member Carty interrupted staff:
“I would hope that we’ll be able to know how much we spent on the project.”
Regional Services Housing Membership Fee
This application is typically a routine annual application. The Regional Housing Services Office (RHSO) provides a significant number of administrative functions for both the Town and the Sudbury Housing Trust. The membership fee is split between the Community Preservation funds and the Housing Trust’s own funds. As the application states:
“A key piece for the RHSO funding is that the CPA funds support housing activities for the Town, and separately the Housing Trust funds support housing activities for the Housing Trust. These are different activities, though all related to housing.”
The fees are increasing by $10,000 for one year for all members, as the leadership of the RHSO is transitioning, and this would fund the onboarding and training of a new director.
Though seemingly routine, Member Carty wanted to know if the added fees were proportional to the membership fees paid by all the members of the RHSO. He felt the added fees should be proportional to the member fees paid. He also wanted to know what exactly was involved in the leadership transition.
At that point there was a 15-second pause as Chair Sherrill Cline looked into the distance silently. (1:29:30)
She appeared exasperated by Member Carty’s domineering approach to the meeting, while other members looked down at their computers or away from the head of the table where Cline and Carty were seated.
The Temperature Is Rising
The CPC meeting contained the latest in a series of tense housing discussions.
Residents of Pine Lakes are seeking opportunities to engage in the process, but have not yet received much of a chance to speak up in certain public meetings.
To be clear — they will get a chance at the upcoming CPC hearings. And on October 8 it certainly sounded like the Select Board wanted to create a space, potentially even outside of their usual public comment time, for the Pine Lakes residents to speak to them about the Housing Production Plan. But established committee procedures have proven less than conducive to the free-flowing public engagement that some residents would prefer.
While there may be room to improve on public engagement, increasing tension driven by the conduct of elected and appointed committee members may escalate things to the point that pent-up public engagement merely becomes fuel poured on an uncontrolled fire.
Other procedural decisions are also contributing to some of the frustration, including the inconsistent manner in which meetings and public comment are handled by various committees and boards. Sudbury Housing Authority meetings, for example, are among the very few that are in-person only, don’t have a means to join remotely, and aren’t recorded by Sudbury TV.
It’s not unusual to see acrimony swirling around housing discussions. But the question looming over Sudbury is whether the temperature will continue to rise, or if those in leadership positions can bring it down.