Clarity

Welcome back!

A few major town issues are coming into sharper focus this week, but there is no shortage of issues to cover in Sudbury these days.

Here’s what we have for you this week:

1. FinCom Discussion Brings Clarity to MBTA Communities Compliance

2. LWV Uncontested Candidates’ Forum Available on SudburyTV

3. Dude, Where’s My Drive-Through?

4. SudburyWeekly.com News Roundup

Let’s get into it!

FinCom Discussion Brings Clarity to MBTA Communities Compliance

By Kevin LaHaise

The MBTA Communities legislation, or “Section 3A”, became law in 2021. It “requires that an MBTA community shall have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute…” More information here.

In other words: it requires 177 towns that are considered MBTA communities to comply with zoning requirements for dense, multi-family housing. The goal is to help address the housing crisis in Massachusetts. For the sake of clarity, the “housing crisis” in Massachusetts is not the same thing as what my kids do with toothpaste in the bathroom, though it’s similarly unnerving. (How did it get on the ceiling???)

The Planning Board and Planning Department have been working with a consultant to devise a strategy that would bring Sudbury into compliance with the legislation. Adam Burney, Sudbury’s Director of Planning and Community Development, joined the Finance Committee meeting to answer their questions about financial impact of compliance. His quick overview of the Town’s proposed approach to compliance is about as efficient an explainer as you can find anywhere. (03:50)

The approach creates a “Multi-Family Overlay District” and plops it right on top of two existing developments in Sudbury: Meadow Walk on Boston Post Road, and Cold Brook Crossing on Route 117. As the Planning Board report says in the warrant article:

In other words, Sudbury’s bylaws would allow more units at these developments, but it was described by Burney as unlikely that recently-opened developments would be redesigned and redeveloped anytime soon just to add incrementally more units, and existing infrastructure for septic/wastewater may be a hurdle. If this approach works as intended, it could bring the Town into compliance with the legislation without opening the door to radical changes anywhere in Sudbury.

The money picture also came into focus during the discussion. Burney noted that it’s very difficult to forecast any financial impact on the Town, either in terms of adding students to the schools or growing demand on emergency services, because no project is currently proposed. He emphasized that the legislation does not require anything to be built; it’s just a zoning change. He also checked with public safety officials, and they felt they already have these areas sufficiently covered with the resources they have.

On the flip side, he explained that non-compliance could have a significant negative financial impact on Sudbury. In response to a question about the impact of non-compliance, Burney said:

Burney estimated the total number of new units that would be theoretically allowed if the Town complies is approximately 300 combined across the two locations. He added that Cold Brook Crossing currently has 173 units not including the two front buildings, because they wouldn’t be in the new overlay district. Meadow Walk currently has 310 units. (20:50)

The Planning Board is expected to hold public hearings on this topic and others in the coming weeks, and then it will go to a vote at Annual Town Meeting in May.

LWV Uncontested Candidates’ Forum Available on SudburyTV

By the League of Women Voters of Sudbury

The League of Women Voters Candidates’ Forum featuring candidates in uncontested races in the March 25 Town Election is now available on SudburyTV.

The League invited uncontested candidates to introduce themselves and briefly discuss the work of the committee or board they will be elected to.

Participating in the forum are Linda Huet-Clayton, Board of Health; Catherine Bitter, Lincoln-Sudbury Regional District School Committee; and Laurie Eliason, Park and Recreation Commission.

A Candidates’ Forum for the contested race for Sudbury School Committee is also available.

The forums are running on SudburyTV’s new cable channels - Comcast 22 and Verizon 30 - during March and are available on demand at sudburytv.org. A cable subscription is not needed to view the on-demand version on a computer or smartphone.

The League’s Voters’ Guide, available on www.lwvsudbury.org, includes links to the forums, as well as basic information about each candidate including their website, social media links, and a brief statement to the community. 

Voters had an opportunity to speak with contested and uncontested candidates at Meet the Candidates, a meet-and-greet sponsored by the League on Sunday, March 10.

Meet the Candidates was attended by Dan Carty and Janie Dretler, candidates in the contested Select Board race; and Karyn Jones and Mary Stephens, candidates in the contested Sudbury School Committee (SPS) race.

Uncontested candidates who attended were Catherine Blake, Moderator; Sherrill Cline, Sudbury Housing Authority; Stephen Garvin, Planning Board; Eriko Frank and Megan Kelley, Goodnow Library Trustee; and Catherine Bitter, Lincoln-Sudbury Regional District School Committee.

To receive notifications about Sudbury Town Election news, including the date of the Meet the Candidates event next year, subscribe on the League website, www.lwvsudbury.org, to receive email alerts or follow the Sudbury League Facebook page.

The town election is Monday, March 25. Mail ballots are being mailed now to those who requested them. There is no in-person early voting for this election.

Dude, Where’s My Drive-Through?

By Kevin LaHaise

This Is Why You Won’t Find Fast Food In Sudbury

Sudbury residents have grown accustomed to driving elsewhere for drive-in food. But many wonder why they can’t find anything of the sort in Sudbury. Yet others wonder why there are drive-throughs for some businesses, like banks and pharmacies, but not others like fast-food restaurants. On the surface, it doesn’t quite make sense. Why allow drive-throughs for some businesses and not for others? 

The story traces back to the early 1990’s, when a Dunkin’ Donuts location was proposed for 378 Boston Post Road. At the time, drive-throughs were allowed in Sudbury’s zoning bylaw, so long as you were in a business district. But the parcel in question was technically in three different zoning districts. Drive-throughs were not allowed in two of them. 

There was much debate in the March 1, 1993 Selectmen’s meeting. Ultimately the Selectmen voted to deny the site plan application that was submitted in late 1992. Concerns about traffic generated by drive-in restaurants featured prominently in the discussions. 

Eventually the Dunkin’ Donuts location was built, but without a drive-through. As fate would have it, by the 1994 Annual Town Meeting, the Planning Board proposed a ban on food drive-throughs: 

Article 47 passed at the 1994 Annual Town Meeting (Page 127) and is part of the zoning bylaw today. That Town Meeting dragged on for almost the entire month April, 1994; beginning on April 4 and dissolving on April 27. The drive-through ban didn’t generate much debate, though there was plenty of debate at that Annual Town Meeting… it was the year that Town Meeting approved the establishment of Sudbury’s Board of Selectmen-Town Manager form of government under the “Home Rule Amendment.”

Today, drive-throughs are a subject of controversy and increasing bans across the country. While many restaurant chains began opening drive-throughs during the Covid-19 pandemic, cities and towns have grappled with the same traffic and safety concerns that were cited in Sudbury in 1994. In neighboring Marlborough, the grand opening of a Raising Cane’s location last year led to significant traffic problems. But it’s not just a matter of traffic these days, as a bevy of new concerns have cropped up. Those range from environmental concerns with lines of idling cars, as well as fears that drive-throughs encourage the use of single-occupancy vehicles for transportation, and possibly disincentivize populations from using public transportation. All of that combined has created a bit of a nation-wide trend to pump the brakes on drive-throughs. 

In Sudbury, the ban on drive-through restaurants seems to be tied to a perception of higher traffic and safety impacts restaurants may have when compared to a bank or pharmacy drive-through. However, the newer environmental concerns didn’t pop up as a major consideration in any of the historical records Sudbury Weekly reviewed. We were unable to find a record distinguishing the negative impacts of one type of drive-through from another type in early 1990’s Sudbury.

The issue also gets a bit tricky for communities trying to boost economic development, as drive-through locations tend to be more profitable for restaurant businesses, and the food service industry is a major, and growing, source of employment options for workers according to the U.S. Department of Labor. 

In stark contrast to the challenges some municipalities are facing with proposed drive-throughs and car-first mobility solutions, Sudbury is, at least in some ways, headed in a very different direction. With the construction of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail (BFRT) well underway, walkability in the Route 20 commercial corridor is expected to improve dramatically. The Mass Central Rail Trail, which will intersect with the BFRT in the heart of Sudbury’s commercial corridor, would support east-west mobility on bike or foot for nearly the entire corridor. 

Another article at the 1994 Annual Town Meeting created the “Village Business District” around the area of Mill Village. The report from the Design Review Board on that article cited the need for improved walkability between businesses given the increasing traffic on Route 20. The language that passed was eventually changed by way of a bylaw codification, and the original prohibitions disappeared, but at the time of the vote it prohibited “Any building, structure, or site arrangement, designed to conduct business with a person in a motor vehicle, or through a window to a pedestrian.” 

The concept of a walkable, village-scale, mixed-use area may have been ahead of its time in 1994, even though the concept harkened back to the early history of the town. A mere 30 years later, two rail trails may finally provide a walkability answer in more than just the Village Business District. Though the trails could also raise new questions… 

Is a bike-through restaurant allowed in Sudbury?

SudburyWeekly.com News Roundup

Here’s what you’ll find on the site this week!

Parting Thoughts

On the municipal front, it looks like a pretty quiet week next week. The main event is the community forum for the Housing Production Plan. Details here. Housing is inching its way towards center stage between all the work going into the Housing Production Plan, as well as the upcoming vote on MBTA Communities compliance.

Of course, the Town Election is coming up quickly, and the daffodils aren’t far behind. This time of year is always a mixed bag. The optimism for spring is tempered by the inescapable anxieties of a local election. But time keeps moving forward, like an SUV through the intersection of Peakham Road and Pratt’s Mill Road while you’re standing in the middle of the crosswalk. That’s why it’s so important to look at the bright side: at least Sudbury drivers meekly wave at you to signal their remorse when they realize living creatures are in the crosswalk. That has to count for something!

Onward!