Residents urge Sudbury boards to reject Sudbury Housing Authority's Pine Lakes duplex plan; SHA seeks $450,000 in CPA funds

Dozens of Sudbury residents urged the Select Board and Finance Committee on Tuesday to oppose Article 46, a Community Preservation Act funding request by the Sudbury Housing Authority to support redevelopment of four single-family homes in the Pine Lakes neighborhood into duplexes.

Public commenters said the authority could preserve the existing homes for far less than the estimated $4.2 million redevelopment cost and questioned SHA's process and fiscal choices. The authority's executive director presented project history and financing at the joint meeting but the boards did not vote on the CPA request at that session.

The nut graf: The Sudbury Housing Authority seeks $450,000 in CPA funding as part of a larger redevelopment project supported by a $1.2 million grant from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. Neighbors argued the current plan would demolish the town's remaining small-family affordable homes in Pine Lakes, cost taxpayers more than alternatives, and follow an outreach process residents described as too limited. The housing authority and its commissioners said the plan responds to state affordability goals and program finance realities; the boards deferred a formal vote and heard extensive questions from the Finance Committee.

Residents from Pine Lakes and other neighborhoods spoke during the public-comment period and again during the joint meeting with the Finance Committee. Candace Obroztov, who identified her address in Pine Lakes, said the four houses could be repaired for roughly $500,000, a fraction of the $4.2 million total price the SHA and its consultants now estimate. She asked the boards not to support Article 46 and to press SHA to consider building on larger lots the authority owns elsewhere.

Other residents echoed that appeal. CJ Davis told the boards that rejecting Article 46 would not be a vote against affordable housing, but for what she called "fiscally responsible" alternatives. Several speakers said the SHA had not fully evaluated other sites and raised the timing of decisions given the recent discovery that deed restrictions had lapsed on other SHA property.

Sheila (executive director, Sudbury Housing Authority) reviewed the authority's history and rationale. She said SHA was awarded a $1.2 million state grant that supports construction and an operating subsidy intended to keep rents affordable and make a duplex program financially sustainable. Sheila described past SHA redevelopments where single-family structures were converted to small multi-unit programs and said those projects created more sustainable funding streams for maintenance and operations than retaining aging units in the state public housing portfolio.

Sheila said SHA's consultant work and past feasibility studies support the duplex approach and that modular construction could reduce costs and construction time. She added that the authority aims to fit the new buildings into neighborhood context and expects the architectural work now under way to produce schematic plans and updated cost estimates before Town Meeting.

Shauna Klein (Sherry Klein), chair of the Community Preservation Committee (and vice chair of the Housing Authority), told the boards CPC supports funding the project in part because the state grant and the operating subsidy would support long-term maintenance; she said the CPC's view was the new model would be more sustainable than continuing to rely on limited state capital funding for older state-portfolio buildings.

Members of the Finance Committee pressed SHA leaders on permitting, unit sizes, pilot payments in lieu of taxes, and the project's long-term fiscal model. Committee members asked for clearer quantitative comparisons between preserving the existing homes and building duplexes, and asked whether alternative SHA-owned sites had been fully vetted.

Several SHA board members and commissioners told the boards SHA had engaged consultants and the Cambridge Housing Authority during feasibility work and described multiple constraints on site options. Commissioner Steve Swanger said the authority had invited neighbors to participate and offered an associate role on the SHA board; he said the authority had not found acceptable alternatives that would deliver the operating subsidy and other program finances necessary to make the new program sustainable.

No formal decision on Article 46 was taken during the joint session; the request for $450,000 in CPA funding remains on the Town Meeting warrant. The Select Board and Finance Committee discussed the item but deferred a final recommendation pending additional information and further public input. SHA leaders said they will present schematic design and updated cost numbers before Town Meeting and have scheduled a neighbor listening session for later this week.

Ending: Both the housing authority and a large group of neighbors urged continued dialogue; residents said they want SHA to show detailed cost comparisons and alternatives before Town Meeting, and SHA said it will supply schematic designs and updated pro forma figures to the boards and the public as the project advances.