The Swellesley Report

A majority of Wellesley Town Meeting members on Monday, May 11 voted to advise the Select Board to negotiate with the state regarding the sale and development of MassBay Community College property eyed for 180 housing units adjacent to forest land.

The state’s goal, in deploying the Affordable Homes Act here, is to increase housing supply while raising funds that MassBay can use to upgrade its Wellesley campus. The 45 acres of property that the state has declared to be surplus contains about 5 acres of parking lot and 40 acres of forest.

In a non-binding vote at Special Town Meeting, members of Wellesley’s elected legislative body had a choice between three options under Article 2, motion 1: (A) Agree to the state’s plan; (B) Negotiate with the Commonwealth (with wetlands protection, traffic management, and other possible areas of negotiation highlighted); or (C) Proceed directly to litigation.

The voting results:

• B (118 votes, or 57%)
• C (75)
• A (11)
• D (2)

So that’s 206 votes among the 240-member group (see how Town Meeting members voted).

Note that the negotiate-forward option B includes this last line: “and further, that the Town preserves all available legal rights and options, including litigation.”

The first hour of Special Town Meeting, which started at 7pm at Wellesley High, featured presentations by Select Board Chair Marjorie Freiman and town counsel Eric Reustle. They combined to review state housing legislation and policy, the property, Wellesley’s history of engaging with the state on this, the town’s options, and potential legal issues and risks. Freiman showed a timeline regarding the property that started about a year ago, with the town getting looped in last September.

During her presentation, Freiman displayed renderings of what a 180-unit development might look like on the MassBay property on and around the current parking lot at 40 Oakland St., and references were made to the 4-story, 149-unit Wellesley Green complex on 7 acres along the Brook Path, for comparison’s sake (a rendering was shown with Wellesley Green on a 5-acre lot).

Moderator Mark Kaplan then turned to debate in roughly 40-minute chunks, starting with Town Meeting members, then non-Town Meeting members, then back to Town Meeting members for the final round. No bio breaks included in what turned out to be a 2-hour debate session, with speakers alternating between those in favor of options A or B, and those in favor of option C. Speakers lined up at mics on each side of the room.

Overall, about 60 people spoke, a few more than once.

Some argued that the town should jump at the chance to get a conservation restriction on most of the forest land at 40 Oakland St. Others contended this is actually already protected land under Article 97, and its 40 acres should not be used by the state in justifying its calculation for 180 units on and around the current parking lot property.

Speakers had different interpretations of the state’s indications and willingness to support town priorities vs. its actual commitments (the state has used wording such as “prepared to require the developer to offer a conservation restriction” and “open to requiring that the selected developer comply with the Town’s existing Inclusionary Zoning requirements…”) Some expressed frustration with what they’ve seen as an unwillingness on the state’s part to negotiate with the town, while others felt suing the state would be too risky, and a long shot to win.

Ann-Mara Lanza got the Town Meeting member comments going. Lanza said she has long loved Centennial Reservation, “but each time I walked up that hill and crossed onto state land, it felt like there was a sword hanging over my head. I worried that we didn’t own that land and the state could change at any time.” Putting housing on part of the MassBay property gives the town the opportunity to save this forest, she said.

Up next was Megan LeBlanc, who said other properties in the state’s Land for Homes program are actually in disuse, whereas the MassBay property (including the parking lot) are not. “The Healey administration is ignoring their own environmental policies to meet housing goals while still patting themselves on the back for those environmental policies,” she said.

And so it went, back and forth between those stepping up to the two mics. Speakers had two minutes to get their points across, and they largely complied. (See the Wellesley Media recording to hear from dozens of speakers in full.)

Jessica Graham asked fellow Town Meeting members to trust their guts in opposing the state’s designation of the MassBay property as surplus, and to vote for option C.  Town Meeting member Joan Gaughan recounted the history of the forested property as parkland, complete with marked trails and benches. Melinda Arias-Voci acknowledged the scariness of going the litigation route, but called it the only option while arguing that Massachusetts needs to make more land available for housing across the state by extending public transportation to those areas.

Don Shepard pointed to a preliminary fiscal analysis that he sent to fellow Town Meeting members in which he concluded that a new housing development on the site will add costs but also convert a largely untaxed property into taxable housing that could generate $1.5m in annual revenue for the town.  Lori Ferrante identified herself as executive director for the Sisters of Charity property at 125 Oakland St., the biggest abutter to the MassBay property other than Centennial Reservation. She shared the sisters’ support for rightsized, affordable housing and their concerns about potential negative impact of a development on the surrounding ecosystem, and their hope that “meaningful collaboration as described in option B could be the path forward, although it does reserve litigation as an option.”

Mary Prosnitz said that she and other Town Meeting members have “a financial responsibility to the town to spend tax funds wisely, and to me, starting off with the most expensive and the most risky method, litigation, makes no sense.” This is especially so in that the state has offered the town preservation of 90% of the land, she said.

A handful of speakers identified themselves as attorneys, and some urged the town to steer clear of litigation while others said there are indications Wellesley could have a case that the state is overreaching with its plans.

Regular Centennial user John Miller, a self-described litigation attorney, urged Town Meeting to vote for option C. “A vote for option A is not a win, it’s capitulation,” he said. “There’s been no meaningful negotiation for eight months. It’s not a win to roll over and accept one of the highest density projects in the town’s history without any traffic studies. It’s not a win to accept it without environmental studies. It would not be a win for the wetlands that extend all around the parking area. It would not be a win for the wildlife…”

Some proponents for the housing development have embraced a “win-win-win” catchphrase referring to the housing, forest preservation, and MassBay funding.

It was also noted during town meeting that a couple of local groups, Friends of Centennial and the Wellesley Conservation Land Trust, have hired legal counsel to protect their interests regarding the MassBay land plans.

There were only two motions on the floor at the meeting, and there was no opportunity to amend the main motion under Article 2.

The motion under Article 3, to appropriate $900k for legal and related professional services to be used for matters related to 40 Oakland St., passed easily before the meeting was dissolved at 10:10pm.

The Select Board on Tuesday, May 12, is slated to discuss and vote on a letter to the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (aka, the state’s real estate arm) regarding 40 Oakland St. The state has set a deadline of May 13 for feedback on the MassBay land disposition ahead of a request for proposals being issued to developers mid-year.

Sign up for Swellesley’s free weekday email newsletter