Share This Article
Town Meeting Article 37 Could Be Indefinitely Postponed
On Monday, April 29, the Sudbury Housing Authority held a special meeting to present to, and field questions from, residents in the Pine Lakes neighborhood of Sudbury. At issue? The proposed redevelopment of affordable single family homes owned by the Housing Authority (Article 37). The concept is to build duplexes, which was broadly opposed by a full room of neighbors and abutters who attended the meeting. Later in the week, the Housing Authority discussed indefinitely postponing the article. That’s not official yet, but it is expected based on comments from people involved in the matter.
(If indefinitely postponed, the article is effectively killed. Per the warrant: “It is possible for Town Meeting to decide to take no action on an article. This decision is usually made because new or additional information has come to light after the preparation of the warrant indicating that action on the article is unnecessary, unwise or illegal. In such instances, frequently there will be a motion “to indefinitely postpone” an article. This motion, if adopted, kills the article for all intents and purposes for the Town Meeting. The motion is frequently used when proponents of an article have decided not to proceed with it but want an opportunity to explain to the meeting why they are, in effect, abandoning the article at this time.”)
Members of the Housing Authority, along with their consultant from the Cambridge Housing Authority, fielded questions and concerns extending well beyond the scheduled time for the Monday meeting. Neighbor concerns varied from engineering-related questions about water runoff and structure size relative to the parcels, to more general questions about how duplexes might change the neighborhood. The Housing Authority members insisted that many of those questions can’t be answered until they have the funding to pursue designs and study the project further.
Residents spoke highly of their neighbors in the affordable units, noting that they were valued members of their community and that they are not opposed to affordable housing. They focused their concerns on the feasibility of the proposal, their perception that alternatives have not been thoroughly considered, and broader concerns about increasing density in one of Sudbury’s most densely-settled areas. Members of the Housing Authority noted that they hear this type of pushback regularly regarding affordable housing proposals, and lamented the challenges they have faced in trying to meet the housing needs of families in the region.
The proposal is the subject of Article 37 on the warrant for Annual Town Meeting. If passed next week, it would receive $450,000 in Community Preservation Act funds. The article is supported by the Community Preservation Committee, the Select Board and the Finance Committee.
The report on the article states:
“21 Great Lake Drive and 8 Oakwood Avenue are single-family homes that SHA owns and operates as state-assisted public rental housing for families. Both of the homes, which are located in the Pine Lake neighborhood, have significant capital needs. 21 Great Lake Drive is currently vacant due to a variety of concerns with the 1960s-era structure, particularly water/moisture damage. It has been challenging for SHA to address these capital needs due to the limited amount of operating and capital funding that it receives from the State.
Article 37
The SHA has consulted with an architect, an engineer, and an affordable housing development consultant regarding the possibility of demolishing these two older homes and replacing them each with two-bedroom duplex homes that are architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. Each of these experts has provided information that supports the current plans. The current funding from the CPA, in addition to previous CPA allocations to the SHA, would leverage state funding which would also be supplemented by a mortgage to be held by the SHA. Indeed, the SHA has recently been advised that this development qualifies for state funding. SHA will work with the community and the various Town Boards and committees during 2024 with the goal of reaching agreement to proceed to construction in 2025.”
The article was also supported by the League of Women Voters of Sudbury earlier this week, with a caveat on an issue that also came up at the Monday meeting:
“On the Community Preservation Act proposals, the League supports Article 37 to allocate funds to the Sudbury Housing Authority to replace two single-family homes with two duplexes. The League, however, asks the SHA to guarantee that families currently living in these homes and in any future homes scheduled for redevelopment will be relocated to comparable housing at a comparable rent in Sudbury, suitable for their family size and without disrupting the schooling of any children involved.”
League of Women Voters of Sudbury
While support for the article spanned multiple Town committees, concerns among many Pine Lakes residents seemed to bubble up in the week prior to Town Meeting, and gained urgency following Monday’s Housing Authority meeting.
The Housing Authority met again on Friday, May 3 and Sudbury Weekly has been told they agreed to indefinitely postpone Article 37 during that meeting. Again, as of the time of publishing, the article was not, to our knowledge, officially “IP’d” in a procedural sense. If/when that happens, it would likely put this controversy to bed, at least for the time being.
Town Meeting begins on Monday, May 6 at 7:30 p.m. Full details here.