Residents urge Select Board to withhold support for Sudbury Housing Authority project, cite costs and alternate sites

Several residents urged the Select Board on March 11 to oppose Article 46, the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) request to release $450,000 in CPA funds for a Sudbury Housing Authority redevelopment plan in the Pine Lakes neighborhood.

Speakers at public comment said the Sudbury Housing Authority (referred to in remarks as "SHA" or the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts Housing Authority in Sudbury") has not vetted lower'cost alternatives and that the project budget has increased since initial planning. CJ Davis, who identified herself from Oakwood Avenue, asked the Select Board to "choose to not support article 46," saying her neighborhood supports affordable housing but wants to preserve single'family affordable-home options. "Allowing this project to move forward would remove that option from town," Davis said, adding that earlier estimates were well below current projections.

Other speakers echoed concern about the project's rising costs and urged more exploration of alternative sites. Alicia Carrillo said the authority had pursued construction at Pine Lakes without clearly explaining why nearby Fairbank Circle had not been used; she said she was "concerned about the idea of taxpayer money being sent after bad decisions" and urged the board to withhold its support. Candace Oberatzoff said she was "shocked" that a neighbor had to inform SHA that a deed restriction on Fairbank Circle had lapsed and asked why that site had not been explored.

Matt Allen, who said he had alerted SHA to the deed restriction issue, told the board that SHA's application packet was submitted before staff had clarified deed questions and that the authority appeared to have a predetermined path. Citizens said they fear repeated appropriations: several noted prior town support and earlier CPC and private contributions and urged the board to account for cumulative public investments.

Speakers offered figures and assertions that the board did not independently verify at the meeting. Examples voiced by commenters included a $450,000 CPA request, prior town gifts of $650,000 toward the project, and a range of total development estimates (one commenter said the project rose from about $3.4 million to about $4.2 million in recent months). The Select Board said it would hear from CPC and the proponents in the weeks ahead and noted the finance committee and CPC had already taken positions on certain CPA articles.

No formal board action on Article 46 occurred during March 11 business; the board scheduled follow'up conversations with CPC and awaited materials from the housing authority and the CPC for future meetings. Residents said they plan to press the Select Board to weigh in ahead of Town Meeting because the board's position is influential to Town Meeting voters.