Sudbury residents urge finance committee to reject CPA support for Sudbury Housing Authority’s Pine Lakes plan

Public commenters at the Sudbury Finance Committee meeting on March 10 urged the committee not to support Article 46, a request tied to the Sudbury Housing Authority(SHA) redevelopment plan for the Pine Lakes neighborhood.

Susan Tarakani of 7 Beechwood Avenue told committee members the SHAplan would demolish three single-family homes and replace them with duplexes while costing about $4,200,000 "for a net of 4 bedrooms" and said that "does not seem fiscally responsible to me." She said SHA representatives had previously told the neighborhood the project would add only a handful of bedrooms and that the scale and cost were out of proportion with expected benefit.

Anne Garcia Maytine (41 Willis Lake Drive) echoed those concerns and noted the SHA has an award from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities that, she said, requires additional units; the SHA plan would "demolish 3 existing family homes, 2 of which are in repairable condition," she told the committee. Garcia Maytine said she worried about future maintenance and said the SHA has not made clear how long maintenance funding tied to the state grant would be available.

Candace Obratzoff (61 Lakewood Drive) also opposed Article 46 and highlighted differences in lot sizes and per-unit land area, saying Fairbank Circle could accommodate additional duplexes "for less money" and preserve more single-family housing options in Pine Lakes. Alicia Crill (68 Basswood Avenue), Jim Kelly (19 Oakwood Ave) and other Pine Lakes neighbors made similar points during the public comment period.

Speakers repeatedly asked the committee to weigh the cost per additional bedroom and the proposalfor alternatives such as siting duplexes at Fairbank Circle. Several speakers cited prior town outreach: one said the November housing flash vote showed a preference for single-family homes under 2,500 square feet among respondents.

No formal SHA presentation or a committee vote on Article 46 occurred during the March 10 meeting. Committee members said they planned to review CPC materials and SHA documents and to invite SHA representatives to a future meeting to answer financial and scope questions raised by residents; they emphasized the committeewould focus its review on the financial implications of any request for town funding.

Ending: Committee members said they would seek written materials and cost details from SHA and CPC and schedule follow-up time to question proposers before making any recommendation to town meeting.