Pine Lakes Residents Oppose Sudbury Housing Authority Duplex Project

The following was submitted by the Concerned Residents of the Pine Lakes in Sudbury

Dear Fellow Resident of Sudbury,

We, Sudbury residents of the Pine Lakes neighborhood, write to you expressing our utmost concern and disapproval of the Sudbury Housing Authority’s (“SHA”) proposal to convert four current single-family homes (21 Great Lake Dr, 8 Oakwood Ave, 2 Beechwood Ave, 9 Richard Ave) into new duplexes (the “SHA Proposal”). A portion of the funding to the SHA Proposal will be presented at Town Meeting as Article 37.

Residents of Pine Lakes recently received a letter from the SHA on April 11th inviting us to attend information meetings on April 22nd and April 29th to learn about the SHA Proposal. This proposal would replace four of SHA’s existing single-family properties with duplexes at the above referenced addresses under the direction and consultation of the Cambridge Housing Authority (“CHA”). Over 40 Pine Lakes residents were present in each of these meetings and unanimously voiced concerns and opposition of the SHA Proposal.

Before getting into the specifics on why many members of the community disapprove of this project, let us begin by stating that we fully support the SHA and their mission to provide affordable housing within the Sudbury community. The residents that live in these homes currently are good neighbors and part of the Pine Lakes community. The SHA’s work and cause should garner more attention, financing, and support from Sudbury. If these information meetings presented thoughtful plans about rebuilding single-family homes or renovating existing homes today, we wouldn’t be writing this letter today. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

The April meetings instead, while giving the appearance of seeking community feedback, appear to be SHA’s attempt to “check the box” by saying they involved the Pine Lakes community in discussions on its development of these duplexes. The CHA, who gave the presentations on behalf of the SHA, mentioned the project would seek awarded funds from a state funding program with conditions they add units in existing locations; hence why duplexes were proposed. The first capital funding for this project is the $450,000 appropriation from the Community Preservation Act (the “CPA Appropriation”) under Article 37. Further private and public fund supplement the project totaling to $3.6M, including the SHA taking on $1.2M in mortgage debt.

The CHA consultants also outlined the project would move through zoning hurdles as a “Friendly 40B” project, circumventing town zoning bylaws and requirements that every other resident must adhere. What is clear at this point is there is nothing “friendly” about this project.

Following the April 22nd meeting with Sudbury and Cambridge Housing Authorities, residents of Pine Lakes noticed the Town Warrant was issued and contained Article 37 under the Consent Calendar, calling for this CPA Appropriation of $450,000 to begin the project. At no point during the information meetings did any members from the SHA or CHA refer to, or disclose the appropriation was being presented on the Consent Calendar. The purpose of the Consent Calendar is to save valuable time and resource by allowing multiple motions to be passed together for articles that “appear to raise no controversy” without public debate. This matter, which is proven to have a significant impact on a local community, is most certainly controversial. The fact the SHA after knowingly hearing this feedback continues lobby for this on the Consent Calendar to restrict open and honest dialogue at Town Meeting is disturbing. This is not the way things should work in Sudbury.

In addition to the above, what follows is a list of other reasons why these duplexes present serious concerns in Pine Lakes. For these reasons the SHA Proposal should be quashed, whether that be at Town Meeting level, the Zoning Board of Appeals level, or before it gets to those points.

1) Density. Have you ever driven through Pines Lakes? Have you brought your kids or family here on Halloween? It is an amazing neighborhood. Not of mansions, but of modest single-family homes on extremely small, non-conforming lots where neighbors are in proximity and children play in the streets. It is clear that the CHA, who is running this project and pitching it to the community, has likely never bothered to drive through Pine Lakes. If they did, they would know this is the most densely packed community in Sudbury and the last place in town where duplexes should be considered. Multi-family housing, such as duplexes, is in direct conflict with the Pine Lakes neighborhood design characteristics.

At the April 22nd meeting a resident asked, “why is Pine Lakes being chosen for the SHA Proposal”? CHA’s response was (paraphrasing but something to the effect of) because “there is not much open space in Sudbury for these affordable units to be built.” The response drew an audible reaction from the crowd in attendance. Sudbury has more open space than just about any town in the area. That is part of the reason many of our families moved here. A comment like that shows a serious lack of knowledge about Sudbury on CHA’s part and evidence that this project has no business moving forward. Sudbury is not Cambridge. We, as a Sudbury residents and taxpayers, are the “owners” of numerous open parcels and plots of open land in Sudbury. One such parcel is Camp Sewataro, a massive tract purchased just a couple of years ago. Sudbury owns this land, yet residents cannot use it most of the summer. Many in fact cannot even get their children into camp there as a resident given the demand, but we still pay for the land acquisition as part of our taxes. As town owned land though, why couldn’t a portion of this, or other town owned property, be given to SHA to build duplexes? It is a rhetorical question, as we all know the difficulty in getting that passed through a vote, but it serves to prove the point that Sudbury has a wealth of open space for affordable duplexes to go where we’ve chosen NOT to put them. A community as densely packed as Pine Lakes IS NOT the solution to this problem.

As an example of how non-sensical the SHA Proposal is, please see the chart below. The first seven lots are the locations of seven other SHA owned duplexes in Sudbury. The average lot size is 0.79 acres. Yet, as you can see from the bottom four lots, which are the proposed sites of the SHA Proposal, the lots averaging 0.20 acres in size… a full 0.59 acres smaller on average than lots on which its other duplexes sit. In fact, the lots at 64 Pine Street and 45-47 Old Meadow Road are big enough to accommodate all four duplexes the SHA is looking to cram into our neighborhood in the SHA Proposal. How does this make any sense? There is no reason or need to cram duplexes into lot sizes so small when other SHA duplexes sit on lots and in neighborhoods with lot sizes that can accommodate such structures and seamlessly fit them into those areas without disrupting the conformity of the neighborhood, especially one as densely packed as ours.

2) Zoning. The SHA letter to residents stated that the SHA Proposal would require “modest dimensional zoning relief due to lot sizes.” Again, please look at the difference in lot sizes between SHA’s existing duplexes and those in the SHA proposal. Does that look like modest zoning relief? Sudbury’s zoning restrictions and tight controls are well known to all residents.

Would it be fair to residents who play by the zoning rules for their town officials to allow such a non-conforming project to move forward? Under this project they would seek permit relief to build duplexes on lots so small anywhere else in Sudbury you could not even build a small single-family house. This proposed bypass when there are restrictions and denials consistently happening for others looking to build additions, increase the footprint of their home, build a shed, or build a bigger porch seems is objectively unfair.

How many setbacks will be encroached on? Where will septic systems go? There is an abundance of questions to be asked here that lead one to wonder if the SHA Proposal is allowed to move forward, how is that fair to other Sudbury residents and Pine Lakes specifically? Additionally, there is the risk of setting a precedent that future developers, SHA, or other subsidized housing programs could look to utilize and/or capitalize on. Any type of relief or variance granted will incentivize developers to purchase existing single-family lots and look to convert to multi-family lots. While there may be some debate as to 40B (see point #3) relief serving as “precedent case” or not, nonetheless the bar will be lowered for any private developer to obtain similar relief in future applications. Once we cross the threshold of loosening zoning to allow duplexes in Pine Lakes, even if to fund affordable housing, the example has been set for more requests to do the same in the future. That is unacceptable.

3) Friendly 40B. As touched on earlier in this letter, the SHA/CHA informed residents at the April 22nd meeting that the SHA Proposal would move through zoning hurdles as a “Friendly 40B.” A Friendly 40B is intended to provide a path for zoning relief to allow for more affordable housing in a town. That is a noble purpose, but again Pine Lakes is not the appropriate section of Sudbury to take this path and build duplexes and this sets a dangerous precedent for future development as outlined in point #2 above. As we understand it, Sudbury’s affordable housing stock sits at 11.88%. Since we are above the state threshold of 10% affordable housing this means that we, as a community, are in control of our future when it comes to affordable housing. We as a town and our town elected/appointed officials are the ones responsible for directing the path of that future and we can assure you that a large group of your fellow residents in Pine Lakes do not support the SHA Proposal as something that should move forward. We are asking you join us in encouraging our town elected/appointed officials to stop the SHA Proposal before it begins and use the power that our 11.88% brings to hear the voices of Sudbury.

4) Impact on New SHA Residents. What is amazing about the single-family SHA properties in Pine Lakes is that many residents have little to no idea the four addresses listed in the opening paragraph were SHA properties. SHA residents should not be, and aren’t, viewed as SHA tenants living in affordable housing. They are just good neighbors. They seamlessly blend into the Pine Lakes community because they live in modest single-family homes on small plots in a neighborhood consisting of virtually all modest single-family homes on small plots. Building duplexes on these properties runs the risk of disrupting that neighborhood mindset for future duplex residents because these structures do not fit the character and conformity of the Pine Lakes neighborhood. Duplexes will stick out regardless of the SHA/CHA contention that they will architecturally blend them in.

At the end of the day, they will be obvious duplexes crammed into small lots. This means there is a real potential that the future residents of those duplexes will be viewed in a different light by their neighbors and looked at as SHA residents who live in the out of place duplexes. This is not fair to those potential residents and should be something the SHA seeks to avoid. Their residents should be afforded homes that fit the neighborhoods where they live and allow the residents to seamlessly blend into the community.

5) Upkeep. At the April 22nd meeting the SHA/CHA repeatedly stated that the SHA Proposal needed to go forward because the current SHA single-family home properties are in such a state of disrepair that they need to be torn down and replaced. Duplexes would replace single-family homes because that was the caveat to receiving the state grant. That begs the question why were the existing SHA properties in such a state of disrepair? These homes should have been properly maintained so that the situation currently facing us never came to fruition. When asked the above question, the SHA responded that the SHA did not have the funds to maintain the existing homes.

First of all, that is tragic. There is no reason that in a community like Sudbury where we purchase huge tracts of land with taxpayer dollars (see Sewataro above) we are not able to find proper funding to maintain our affordable housing in a habitable condition. Second, if SHA cannot maintain the current properties, they have what is to make us think that they can maintain the new duplexes they propose to build? We would suggest we should have no faith in these new proposed properties being properly maintained and there is a high likelihood that if the SHA Proposal moves forward and these duplexes are built that: (a) they will disrupt the community for all the points set out in this letter and (b) they will not be properly maintained so in the next 10 or so years we will find ourselves back in the same situation. Rather than tear apart Pine Lakes with the SHA Proposal would not it make much more sense to find a way to properly fund the SHA so they can maintain their existing stock of homes? We would suggest that rather than push the CPA Appropriation to fund the SHA Proposal, there would be much more benefit (and likelihood of success of passing) to finding a mechanism to allocate the proposed $450,000 in CPA funds to the SHA to update and modernize the existing single-family homes rather than turning them into duplexes. Then Sudbury should look at finding other revenue streams to help the SHA on their mission to modernize and maintain their properties.

6) Environment. Pine Lakes is called Pine Lakes for a reason…there are trees everywhere. These trees serve as shade and a sense of a boundary from neighbors who are very close by because of the aforementioned small lot sizes. Residents of Pine Lakes care about this and it is part of what makes the neighborhood special. Tearing down the existing SHA homes, which arguably need repairs not reconstruction, for larger duplexes will no doubt have an impact on those trees. 21 Great Lane and 2 Beechwood in particular are surrounded by very old large trees. There is little doubt these will be cut down as part of the process for building the duplexes, leaving space for 2 driveways on each lot, etc. Even if the SHA/CHA agree to replant trees as part of the project it would take 20, 30, or 40+ years for those trees to reach the size of those currently in place creating an environmental impact that will take decades to come back. That is unacceptable. We also should not ignore the impact of septic systems. SHA/CHA is talking about growing these properties (again on incredibly small lots) from one-family to two-family homes. These larger septic systems that need to accompany these two-family homes would surely have a negative impact on the neighbors who live nearby and the environment.

7) Traffic. Per Point #1 Pine Lakes is as densely packed as it gets in Sudbury yet adding three new duplexes means three additional driveways with at minimum six (or possibly more) vehicles. This raises concerns for parents of young children who as of present day see cars speeding through our tightly packed neighborhood ignorant of children and adults who play, rides bikes, etc. through the Pine Lakes grid. If you have children in town they have probably trick-or-treated in Pine Lakes at some point. If you have accompanied them, you know every additional car driving in this grid matters. More cars mean more risk for current residents.

This is a lengthy letter, but we feel it is vitally important to share at least a cursory overview of the issues that make the SHA Proposal unacceptable to the vast majority of Pine Lakes residents who attended the SHA meetings. These attending members, along with a number of others, reflect a group of over 100 local Pine Lakes residents that oppose this plan.

We would like to emphasize again that we fully support the SHA and their mission. If the topic at issue was raising funding for SHA or rebuilding or updating these single-family homes as single-family homes, we would be fully in support of it. But as it stands, many Pine Lakes residents are firmly against the SHA Proposal or any proposal that calls for duplexes to be built in Pine Lakes. The SHA Proposal is bad for Pine Lakes and bad for Sudbury in general.

We, your neighbors in the Pine Lakes neighborhood, ask that you as our fellow residents of Sudbury join us in blocking, rejecting, or seeking modification of any proposal, article, call for zoning relief, etc. that allows for the SHA Proposal to move forward in its current form. More immediately this asks for you to vote against (“No”) to the motion to carry Article 37, as currently written, at Town Meeting.

—Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Concerned Residents of the Pine Lakes neighborhood.