The next twelve months will be key in the Town’s fight against Sudbury Station, a large-scale 40B housing development proposed for a significant parcel of land immediately abutting Sudbury’s historic Town Center and cemetery.
Given this, the upcoming Board of Selectmen election is important to Oppose Sudbury Station. Three candidates are running for two open positions. Ahead of the election we thought a side-by-side posting of their views would be helpful.
We sent the following question to each candidate and requested a 150 word response to be posted online, in randomized order. Please read their responses below. Note, the Oppose Sudbury Station group is impartial and does not endorse any candidate.
Question: Why do you believe the proposed Sudbury Station development would be bad for Sudbury (in your own words, 150 max, responses posted in randomized order)?
Candidate Response #1: Janie Dretler
Implications of this project are broad: from the impact this development will have on Sudbury’s historic core in terms of loss of open space, loss of integrity to our historic center, cemeteries, to increased traffic, strain on infrastructure, introduction of new night noise, light pollution, and 18+ months of construction. Concerns remain about long-term traffic safety and environmental implications of this massive project.
My opposition to this project is not about affordable housing, a cause I fully support. I back the ZBA’s approval of the project at 30 units and believe the town should fight to uphold their decision. As a leading member of the Oppose Sudbury Station steering committee, I am proud of the smart, strong, and influential citizen rebuttal to this project. Our group was key in identifying flawed traffic safety, environmental, historic preservation impacts, and other areas lacking in the developer’s project submittals.
Janie Dretler’s website: https://goo.gl/fB9yvL
Candidate Response #2: Bill Schineller
I believe the proposed new 250 unit Sudbury Station development is too large and dense for that location. I believe it will permanently exacerbate traffic and safety issues in Town Center. Safety in terms of car and pedestrian accidents, in an area where people cross to get to schools, churches, town buildings, small businesses. Visibility is tough, and more cars means more aggressive drivers (from harried commuters to inexperienced high young high school drivers). I believe development of the proposed size and architecture will be obtrusive and subtract from the historical character of Town Center. Sudbury’s historical character is a valuable hallmark of the town, and Town Center is one of our most beautiful and historical spots. As ugly as Rt 20 currently is, that’s how pretty and scenic Town Center is. Let’s protect Town Center from overdevelopment. I was disappointed that developer was not receptive to scaling down the development.
Bill Schineller’s website: https://goo.gl/Xmnfqv
Candidate Response #3: Dan Carty
It brings a serious safety issue – town center can’t even handle the traffic it has now. Our ‘New England quaint’ downtown would be ruined forever; 250 high-density housing units are out of place juxtaposed to the Revolutionary War cemetery, beautiful churches, 300 year old Loring Parsonage, and the Hosmer House. But it also makes us a pawn in the seriously flawed 40B game. We consciously planned MeadowWalk to get us over our 10% affordable threshold yet state law still encourages the predatory behavior from this developer. That’s just plain wrong.
Since enacted in 1969 only 50 of 351 towns, including Sudbury, have achieved the 40B 10% affordable housing quota. Sudbury Station would push us to 14%, #10 in the state just below Holyoke, Boston, Chelsea, Springfield, Cambridge, and Lawrence and just above Lynn, N.Adams, Worcester, Lowell and Brockton. They simply are not the towns we typically compare ourselves to.
Dan Carty’s website: https://goo.gl/Y7UKwg