You decide

Welcome back!

Town Meeting starts on Monday. That means there’s a LOT to get to this week, and extra opportunities to use animated GIFs.

Here’s what we have for you:

1. Logo Contest Alert! Sudbury 250 Committee Calls for Submissions

2. Pine Lakes Neighborhood Voices Concerns to Housing Authority Over Duplex Plans; Article Could Be Indefinitely Postponed

3. Town Meeting Preview: What Articles Are Driving the Debate?

4. SudburyWeekly.com News Roundup

5. SPS Nurses Seek Community Support In Contract Negotiations

Let’s get into it!

Logo Contest Alert! Sudbury 250 Committee Calls for Submissions

By Kevin LaHaise

According to the Town of Sudbury website: “The Sudbury Select Board established the Sudbury 250 Committee to plan for the commemoration of the 250^th anniversary of the commencement of the American Revolution.” As part of their efforts, the 250 Committee has announced a logo contest to kick of a year-long celebration of the “semiquincentennial,” which is both an excellent word and quite fun to say.

The committee gave ample room for contestants to be creative. The requirements state: “The submission deadline is June 1, 2024, and all designs become the property of the Committee. Send either by email as a PNG or JPG file to [email protected]. The artist’s name, address, phone number and email address must be included.”

As for the eventual winner? They’ll see their work displayed prominently:

The contest is open to residents of all ages, as well as people with ties to Sudbury. Just remember the deadline is June 1, 2024. Complete information here.

Pine Lakes Neighborhood Voices Concerns to Housing Authority Over Duplex Plans

Town Meeting Article 37 Could Be Indefinitely Postponed

By Kevin LaHaise

On Monday, April 29, the Sudbury Housing Authority held a special meeting to present to, and field questions from, residents in the Pine Lakes neighborhood of Sudbury. At issue? The proposed redevelopment of affordable single family homes owned by the Housing Authority (Article 37). The concept is to build duplexes, which was broadly opposed by a full room of neighbors and abutters who attended the meeting. Later in the week, the Housing Authority discussed indefinitely postponing the article. That’s not official yet, but it is expected based on comments from people involved in the matter.

(If indefinitely postponed, the article is effectively killed. Per the warrant: “It is possible for Town Meeting to decide to take no action on an article. This decision is usually made because new or additional information has come to light after the preparation of the warrant indicating that action on the article is unnecessary, unwise or illegal. In such instances, frequently there will be a motion “to indefinitely postpone” an article. This motion, if adopted, kills the article for all intents and purposes for the Town Meeting. The motion is frequently used when proponents of an article have decided not to proceed with it but want an opportunity to explain to the meeting why they are, in effect, abandoning the article at this time.”)

Members of the Housing Authority, along with their consultant from the Cambridge Housing Authority, fielded questions and concerns extending well beyond the scheduled time for the Monday meeting. Neighbor concerns varied from engineering-related questions about water runoff and structure size relative to the parcels, to more general questions about how duplexes might change the neighborhood. The Housing Authority members insisted that many of those questions can’t be answered until they have the funding to pursue designs and study the project further.

Residents spoke highly of their neighbors in the affordable units, noting that they were valued members of their community and that they are not opposed to affordable housing. They focused their concerns on the feasibility of the proposal, their perception that alternatives have not been thoroughly considered, and broader concerns about increasing density in one of Sudbury’s most densely-settled areas. Members of the Housing Authority noted that they hear this type of pushback regularly regarding affordable housing proposals, and lamented the challenges they have faced in trying to meet the housing needs of families in the region.

The proposal is the subject of Article 37 on the warrant for Annual Town Meeting. If passed next week, it would receive $450,000 in Community Preservation Act funds. The article is supported by the Community Preservation Committee, the Select Board and the Finance Committee.

The report on the article states:

The article was also supported by the League of Women Voters of Sudbury earlier this week, with a caveat on an issue that also came up at the Monday meeting:

While support for the article spanned multiple Town committees, concerns among many Pine Lakes residents seemed to bubble up in the week prior to Town Meeting, and gained urgency following Monday’s Housing Authority meeting.

The Housing Authority met again on Friday, May 3 and Sudbury Weekly has been told they agreed to indefinitely postpone Article 37 during that meeting. Again, as of the time of publishing, the article was not, to our knowledge, officially “IP’d” in a procedural sense. If/when that happens, it would likely put this controversy to bed, at least for the time being.

Town Meeting begins on Monday, May 6 at 7:30 p.m. Full details here.

Town Meeting Preview: What Articles Are Driving the Debate?

By Kevin LaHaise

There’s no shortage of anticipated controversy at this year’s Annual Town Meeting in Sudbury. From zoning to affordable housing, pool renovations to electric vehicle chargers, there’s something for everyone to rage post about on Facebook discuss in a civil tone.

But a few articles seem like they will be the ones that stir up the most discussion in the hall, so we’re providing a quick rundown with links to prior stories for anyone who wants to dig into the details. As always, Sudbury Weekly does not take any positions on the articles.

Article 3 — The FY25 Budget

There was a good deal of acrimony in late 2023 regarding the budget guidance that Sudbury Public Schools received for FY25. It’s possible that crops up again. In the last couple years the budget itself has sailed through without much discussion at all, but could that change this year? SPS budget stories here and here.

Article 16 — Firearms Safety Business Use Zoning Bylaw

There was a good amount of debate about this one at the Select Board’s information session last month, though the session was stopped before getting to all the questions and comments because the Goodnow Library had to close for the night. Nonetheless, much of that debate has continued on social media and this article is highly anticipated.

As previously reported in Sudbury Weekly: The Firearms Safety Business Use Zoning Bylaw has been subject to a variety of different positions from Sudbury boards and committees. The Select Board supported the bylaw by a vote of 3-2. The Planning Board unanimously supported it, and the Zoning Board of appeals did not support it; opting instead to voice the need for additional work to improve upon a long list of flaws they perceived in the bylaw.

Article 23 — Atkinson Pool Renovation

Sudbury’s new community center is almost complete, and the next project is the Atkinson Pool, which was not included in the original project. Here’s our most recent reporting on the community center project, as well as the Atkinson Pool.

The new community center was built around the original Atkinson pool. But during construction several issues cropped up with the pool, including some leaks that were hard to track down, eventually leading to an anonymous report to the Environmental Protection Agency. Some work was completed on the pool last year, but there are other needs remaining according to the report on the article; including a new roof and mechanical upgrades. Sudbury’s Combined Facilities Director, Sandra Duran, has stated that this project will get the pool into good shape for the long-haul. It’s supported by the Select Board and Finance Committee, as well as the Park and Recreation Commission.

Article 28 — EV Charging Stations at the Goodnow Library

This one wins the award for being the strangest article on the warrant this year. The project is already underway, Town staff have already identified other funding sources that don’t require Town Meeting, the net cost to the Town is estimated at well less than $10,000, and the article has repeatedly been described as unnecessary by Town Manager Andy Sheehan. The Finance Committee opted not to recommend approval of the article in their latest meeting, but the Select Board still hasn’t taken a position after multiple tortured conversations, the latest being this week. (52:50)

The Select Board was hoping to get more information from the Chair of the Goodnow Library Trustees, but the Chair was unable to join the Select Board on Tuesday. In their last meeting the Trustees felt it was best to keep the article rather than indefinitely postponing it, suggesting in their comments that keeping it would somehow ensure the already-happening project happens. The Select Board may discuss this once again at their Tuesday meeting just before the start of Annual Town Meeting.

Articles 33 and 34 — MBTA Communities

From another Sudbury Weekly article earlier this week: Articles 33 and 34, which would bring Sudbury into compliance with the MBTA Communities Act, have the unanimous support of the Select Board and the Planning Board, though the legislation has been a source of controversy across the state.

While controversial, the vast majority of municipalities have voted to comply, with the exception of a few. The Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) has taken a firm stance on enforcement. For example, Milton was sued by the AG for non-compliance after residents voted down a zoning change that would have brought the Town into compliance, and then the Town filed a counterclaim questioning the AG’s ability to enforce the law.

Finance Committee member Hank Sorett, acting as a private resident, has been waging a bit of a campaign to defeat these articles and fight the State, though the articles are already supported by both the Select Board and the Planning Board. Prior story here.

Article 40 — Parkinson Field Driveway Design

Full coverage of the winding road this one took to Town Meeting here and here. The article is supported by both the Select Board and the Finance Committee, but that’s only after the Finance Committee reversed its vote not to support the article. Discussions among the Rails Trails Advisory Committee suggested that this one could be pulled off the consent calendar for debate by those in opposition.

It’s unclear if that’s also a possibility with Article 36, which seeks Community Preservation Act funds for the design of Phase 3 of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. More details on the rail trails in a recent Q&A here.

SPS Nurses Seek Community Support In Contract Negotiations

By Kevin LaHaise

The Massachusetts Nurses Association circulated a petition on April 30 seeking to gather signatures supporting the Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) nurses in their ongoing contract negotiations. Their contract has been open since the last teacher’s contract was finalized, a period of multiple years, with little public discussion and no reported progress.

Sudbury Weekly has previously reported on the story here.

The SPS School Committee scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, May 6, just before Town Meeting, to review policy updates and conduct an executive session to “discuss strategy with respect to and in preparation for collective bargaining or litigation with the Sudbury Education Association and the Nurses’ Union…”

That executive session may well set the trajectory for contract negotiations and next steps with both groups, but two members of the committee will conclude their terms at the end of Town Meeting when Karyn Jones and Mary Stephens are sworn in. Jones and Stephens won their seats in the March Annual Town Election.

Parting Thoughts

Well, there you have it. As much information as we can pump at you on this lovely Friday evening before Annual Town Meeting.

Now it’s up to Sudbury residents to decide what happens next. The only question left is: how many residents will attend?

Onward!