Survey respondents overwhelmingly favored keeping Camp Sewataro, and the advisory committee voted for the camp too. But its draft recommendations keep the possibility of housing, and the meeting recordings show how that option survived.
The Liberty Ledge/Sewataro Advisory Committee presents its draft recommendations Thursday night, ahead of its final report to the Select Board on October 31.
The recommendations favor continuing Camp Sewataro, which is what the committee’s own survey found residents wanted. Of 708 respondents, 364 (51.4%) ranked summer camp first. Affordable and market-rate housing together were the first choice of only 41 (5.8%), and the two housing options had the lowest scores of the eight named uses. On October 1 the committee voted 4–2 to recommend camp use, with Kay Bell and Debbie Dineen voting no (2:44:50).
The draft also recommends exploring the conversion of the existing house at 213 Haynes Road into an affordable residence. Other recommendations preserve land for “municipal uses” and “currently unforeseen municipal needs.” The committee adopted “municipal uses” after members warned that explicitly mentioning housing could provoke public opposition. Recommendation 7 keeps undeveloped land undisturbed for now, but says it is “not intended to… preclude future municipal uses.” Recommendation 11 is titled “Preserve Flexibility for Multiple Uses of the Property.”
The Housing Trust’s interest. The Sudbury Housing Trust wanted more. At its meeting on the morning of August 13, Trust member Jeff Levine said the 213 Haynes parcel “and the land that’s close to it” amounts to “several acres… that could support multiple… units of housing” (0:25:48). Bell, who sits on both the Trust and the advisory committee, described the field next to the house: “It’s an open field, it’s been mowed. We could easily… construct homes” (0:28:41). Trust member Jack Ryan then spoke to her directly: “as a member of the Housing Trust, I’m saying to you as a member of the Advisory Committee… put [housing] in the report” (0:33:46, 0:34:59).
The door stays open. The advisory committee met that evening at 7. Its chair, Dave Henkels, proposed ruling out development: “I’m against any development out there of any kind” (1:22:50). Bell answered: “If we’re trying to reach consensus, I would be holding out… to leave the option open” (1:28:54). The topic was put over to the next meeting.
On September 3, the committee reached three items on its list of ideas to rule out, all saying not to put housing on the property. Bell objected: “I really want the door open, not shut” (1:38:17). None of the three appeared in the next draft.
On October 1 Dineen warned that “leaving housing in there is a death penalty for this evaluation,” because people would see it as “the first step in putting housing on the property” (0:51:39). The committee switched to the warrant article’s wording, which “references municipal uses” (0:53:12). After the camp vote, the chair asked Bell and Dineen what would address their concerns. The result was “currently unforeseen municipal needs” (2:59:18). Bell explained the switch: “Housing is a municipal use if it’s a low-income housing run by the Sudbury Housing Authority. So, if we just take it out… and just leave it out” (3:10:48).
The committee voted 4–2 for the camp. But the two members who voted against it helped preserve the possibility of housing, and the three items that would have ruled it out disappeared.
The word came out. The option stayed open.
Residents can weigh in Thursday, October 8. The committee presents its recommendations from 7 to 9 PM at the Fairbank Community Center (Multi-Purpose Rooms 1 and 2) and on Zoom. Public input begins at 7:15 PM (notice). Written comments can be sent to llsac@sudbury.ma.us and selectboard@sudbury.ma.us.