Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Cpa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and housing officials spar over Sudbury Housing Authority CPA request; Fincom hears both sides
Summary
Two residents addressed the Finance Committee during public comment on March 31 with opposing views about a Sudbury Housing Authority request for Community Preservation Act funds for a Pine Lakes-area project.
Two residents addressed the Finance Committee during the public-comment portion of the March 31 meeting about a Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding request from the Sudbury Housing Authority.
Alicia Carrillo of 68 Basswood Avenue urged the committee and the Select Board not to support Article 46, the SHA request for CPA funding. "I'm really concerned about Sudbury taxpayers sending good money after bad," Carrillo said, and she criticized what she described as neglect of the authority—s existing single-family affordable housing stock. Carrillo told the committee the Housing Authority allowed deed restrictions on some properties to expire without residents being informed promptly and that she believed the authority had previously received about $650,000 for the same proposed project. She asked the town not to add roughly $450,000 more in CPA funds to the project.
John Reardon, speaking as an individual although identifying himself as a member of the Sudbury Housing Trust and chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals, urged support for the Housing Authority—s funding request. Reardon said the town faces a shortage of buildable land for affordable housing and described the project as one of a limited number of options to provide homes for several families. "I have confidence in the Sudbury Housing Authority to act prudently with respect to use of town money to build it," Reardon said, and he recommended favorable consideration of the article to provide housing for up to eight families.
No formal Fincom vote or committee recommendation on Article 46 occurred at the March 31 meeting; committee members acknowledged they had received written comments and said the item and related CPC recommendations would be reviewed again before offering a formal recommendation to Town Meeting.
The two public commenters presented opposing perspectives: Carrillo emphasized alleged past mismanagement and warned against additional taxpayer funding; Reardon emphasized the difficulty of producing affordable units in Sudbury and his support for the Housing Authority—s strategy.
The committee did not take action on Article 46 during the meeting and will consider further information and CPC recommendations at a later date.
