Select Board September 23, 2026

Hi, Collette. Hi. Can you hear me OK?

Mm-hmm.

Yep.

Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to call to order the select board meeting of September 23rd, 2026 in the Giuliani room at Town Hall. The meeting is being held in hybrid format, broadcast live on Comcast Channel 8 and Verizon Channel 40. And available for later viewing on wellesleymedia.org Selec board members here are Tom Ulfelder, Vice Chair. Secretary Colette O'Frank joining us via Zoom. Beth Sullivan Woods and Kenny Largess. And I'm Marjorie Freiman. Also here with us are Executive Director Megan Jopp and Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa. I don't think we have anyone here for Citizen Speak, So we'll turn to Megan, please for the executive director's update.

I don't have much of an update today, Margaret. Oh, the only thing I just remind folks to register for the October 1st North 40 charrette and you can do that online at the town's website.

And if you haven't heard, the Charette has been moved to the high school from the Honeywell School.

Beth, not this weekend but next weekend is Discover Wellesley the merchant event so we would encourage people to go out Friday and Saturday parking is waived and the merchants have planned a lot of exciting activities

Thank you, Beth. Our next agenda item is the Consent Agenda. We have five items on the consent agenda this afternoon to reappoint a member to the Wellesley Cultural Council to vote to purchase seasonal wreaths for the downtown commercial areas, to vote two one-day alcohol licenses for the Wellesley Historical Society for fall events. to vote the warrant for the state election on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026. and to vote Brandon Schmidt, NRC director as the local government representative for clean energy siting and permitting. Colette may I have a motion please?

Move to approve the consent agenda

Second.

Collette, aye. Kenney, Beth? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Oh sorry Tom. I heard you say second and I forgot to get your votes. Sorry about that. Okay. Moving right along. Just got to get to the right page. Okay, our next agenda item is to discuss and vote the Conchituate Aqueduct Access License for 16 Laurel Avenue and We have attorney David Himmelberger here with us. Megan, would you like to introduce it?

Sure. A 16-lore lab project is converting an existing building to residential with an addition. This is one of the town's first MBTA community projects that will be going forward. This project has gone through site plan review and is essentially a permitted project at this point, prior to construction, the applicants worked as a requirement of the site plan with the engineering division for location of utilities, water line. And as part of that given the very close proximity to the town's aqueduct we're only inches from the property line where the existing building is So, looking at actual constructability and looking at from a safety perspective access to do that. In addition on inspection of the aqueduct, that particular section

The town identified that there were some installations that were put on at some point likely in 2019, 2020. which included a flag pole, some lights and those would be removed as part of this. Given that this is an MBTA project we also have worked with the applicant and I do believe Jeff is also on Zoom as well from Pioneer Construction. and so we've worked with them too to look at creating, redoing sort of a path to connect the two roads which then would get you from Laurel to Prescott which then will get you closer to the MBTA. and so with that we have a license agreement for them to access proportionately the back end of the aqueduct for construction. And David, I don't know if you wanna add to that

Thank you, Megan. David Himmelberger representing Babson House LLC the record owner and as you mentioned Jeff Birnbaum principal is on as well So yes, the aqueduct parcel runs skewed at an angle past my client's property. and there is a portion that is very close, as Megan indicated inches. We met for about an hour and a half with Dave Hickey at Engineering to review all of engineering and DPW concerns regarding how we would do that. there was a suggestion which we agreed to that in addition to providing an as-built for our foundation, which is the portion above the ground would also provide an as-built for the footings, just to confirm that our footings are not intruding onto the town land.

We have a designated area that is on attachment A to the license that shows the discrete area where we are in very close proximity. Additionally, there was an existing walkway that extends from Laurel Ave to Prescott Street again, because the properties are not parallel it crosses 16 Laurel and then goes out onto the town land before returning on to 16 Laurell. and so during the site plan review process, the applicant agreed to relocate that walkway if you will fully onto the town's land. and Sheila Page from Mobility Wellesley also weighed in.

And the agreement was to construct sidewalk, based upon DPW plans in a somewhat meandering fashion so as to avoid any of the existing trees or shrubs that are there. Additionally, there is a monument on the ground roughly three by five feet in dimension that's probably 18 inches tall, sitting on the ground at a bit of an angle that commemorates the fact that this was Babson Reports. the history of the building and it sits literally on the property line. And so we agreed to move that onto the town's property as well.

There are a number of specific elements that are outlined in the license agreement, all of which were reviewed with Dave Hickey and as importantly Town Council. and I believe we have an agreed upon license agreement for your approval, respectfully.

Do board members have any questions?

Beth. So I guess are we approving this retroactively because it appears that much of the work has occurred and the area is sealed off. That walkway's not accessible anymore.

So no, the walkway that's sealed off is the portion that's on 16 Laurel. There is, it's my understanding there where the property is in proximity to the town land that there is construction fencing. And so, that piece is in existence currently but there hasn't been a sealing off of the town land, per se. It's that 16 Laurel has the start of the walkway on it and so the construction fencing is around if I understand it correctly.

I couldn't find the flagpole today

So the flagpole is on the far side closer to Prescott.

Do you think it's gone? I think its gone.

I mean it was out there not that long ago the flag is gone but the pole's still there okay yeah

Anything else Beth? I have a couple other things. So this is 18, will the entire pathway be closed to public access during the construction? You know, like can you cut from Prescott to Laurel on town land safely?

Yes but you'd be walking on grass.

Okay. And that's how long is this work supposed to last?

I would ask, Mr. Birnbaum, is this 18 months?

Eighteen months, roughly, yes.

and this agreement covers the entire duration. So if it goes 24 months, we have the ability to say

Yes, and the only other kind of time sensitive piece is that the walkway has to be constructed prior to the first granting of any certificate of occupancy be it partial, temporary what have you.

I was not clear why we're not reinstalling the flagpole on town land.

It's a maintenance issue, essentially.

Yeah, it's not clear to me. I think it was... It's possible that it was installed by Babson Reports when they owned the building.

I'm understanding it was install after Arnold Haynes passed away as a... That's my understanding.

But didn't he just pass away in the last... 2017? It's possible, but I don't know.

Could we put the flagpole back up? It just seems to me we shouldn't be removing flagpoles.

Well, it was installed without permit. There was electricity run to it without permit so we would look at it currently as an encroachment on town land. It would be additional, you know I think DPW was looking at it for removal because it's additional maintenance.

It's not particularly visible now in the fact that you have the Wellesley Women's Medical Office building on Washington Street. effectively blocks the view of it. The only view is when you get down Prescott Street

May I suggest that that's an issue that can be part of some continued conversations. It shouldn't hold up our approval of this licensee agreement.

And if somebody wants to put it up, they could apply to put Right, it's on town land.

We were only taking it down because we were requested to take it down.

Well I think Tom is right that's not really the issue of the license agreement right now

Yeah, the license agreement is for construction access onto the aqueduct for construction purpose and to allow for them to reconstruct well to do some of the tie outs on the water line and then to reconstruct the path.

Yeah, that's the other point. During site plan approval DPW Water Department asked whether we would would be willing to allow the town to run a water line from the end of Prescott, which is a dead-end waterline. disfavor significantly and connect over to Laurel Ave so that there'd be a loop. And we agreed, yes of course. We're happy to give you an easement to run it. Our water was coming directly in from Laurel as part of this conversation with DPW, they said it really makes a lot more sense just to put this on our land. That is to say the town land and run it over the town parcel. So we said, fine, we're happy to do that too. DPW is supplying the materials and we're doing the installation

and my last question was, I didn't see compensation for the year-and-a-half access license. My familiarity is with when the town allows the use of its land for a period of time that there is compensation for that usage.

I guess I would argue that the compensation, if you will, is an in-kind compensation. The installation of the water line for the town as well as the reconstruction of a sidewalk for the Town

that has value too. So I thought when projects of this type happened, reconstruction of sidewalks was generally a part of the deal when our development goes in so I guess I didn't understand that as in kind and the water pipe serves the development, no? No.

The water pipe does not serve the development it's solely to allow the town to have a loop as opposed to a dead end this walkway is not part of the site plan approval, but was something additional that was agreed to. the site plan approval addressed sidewalks on Laurel but this was not a sidewalk that was part of site plan the request was made would you relocate it and we agreed, client agreed.

It seems to make sense to do that while they're opening things up and not to have to do it later if the town wanted a loop. Correct, correct. So that seems to me to have some value. Anybody else? Kenny?

So that was one of my questions, which answers that question. My other question was and I don't purport to totally understand it. It sounds like we're gonna let the developer use our lands to facilitate building the structure. and everything around, right? Correct. And we're getting paid in an in-kind contribution essentially but if something happens on that land there's an indemnity

which covers. And town is named as an additional insured, etc., etc. But in fairness this is a a parcel that is 20 or 40 feet wide and the distance from Laurel to Prescott. Walsh, and so forth. sidewalk at a place to be determined based upon the DPW plans.

So what do you think the risk of somebody getting hurt on that or some instance that would trigger the indemnity? Because my concern ultimately is, and maybe the insurance gets us there. if something happens and I don't know who Babson House LLC is or how it's capitalized, is there anything standing behind that?

Well I think the the biggest element is that they'd have to get through a construction fence, and that's why the town insists upon not just indemnification but also being named as an insured, additional insured on a insurance policy.

Anything else? Anybody else? Colette, do you have any questions? Nope. Okay. All right.

I think if... Go ahead. Move to approve the access license for the constituent aqueduct.

Second.

Tom, Beth, Colette, Kenny and I vote aye as well. Thank you very much David for being here that was very helpful. Oh, thank you Jeff. Can't see you so forgot to thank you. Okay our next agenda item is special town meeting preparation we are going to defer discussion on both article five and article seven The By-law Review Committee is meeting on Monday, and we're deferring Article 5 to allow for finalization of financial materials. So we have other motions that we can discuss. And as we go through them, okay it's nothing on Article 1 I assume. Is there anything on Article 2? Anybody have anything on article two?

And Article 2 is a proposed consent agenda, which I've added the Transfer Parking Clerk Funds from Treasurer to Police, which is Article 4 Motion 1 and Article 6 which is the rescind debt. And again, that would be contingent upon discussions with the moderator as well as unanimous vote by advisory.

we plan to meet with the moderator in the next week or so and Megan presented these two advisory and there wasn't any concern about those

I wondered if planning would want to put their transfer also in consent, because it's not an incremental budget item. It's similar to what we're doing.

I haven't seen their motion, so motions are due on Friday. So that very well might be a consent agenda item as well Beth.

Again depending on advisory. and the moderator. I will present Article 2 at town meeting. Beth, would you do Article 4 if for some reason it's pulled from consent?

The answer is yes, I'm just looking to see what it is.

Yes. It's our transfer? Okay. Colette will do Article 5 and we'll talk about that next week or the week after, Colette? Okay. Tom, if necessary will you do Article 6 and Kenny will do Article 7 and we'll defer discussion until next week? or when Kenny's ready following the by-law review committee meeting. Are there any other questions about our motions?

No. Do you want me to make a motion to approve the articles 2, 4 and 6? Please. Okay, so move to approve the 2026 special town meeting motion language for Article 2 Motion 1, Article 4 Motion 1 and Article 6 Motion 1.

Second

Kenny, Tom, Collette, Beth and I vote aye as well. All right, moving on to administrative matters. We have two sets of minutes from July 22nd and August 17th, 2026

I did have some comments on the edits, Marjorie. Okay. So looking at July 22nd online 79 I actually think it was fine as it was drafted. I do think the intent was to say it was virtually impossible, not more challenging.

Sorry, say what line again that is Colette and I can amend it.

It's lines 78 and 79 of July 22nd.

That was me that made that edit. I think virtually impossible is a far stronger sentiment where challenging acknowledges it requires more coordination.

It's not my mountain, however. But I think that what the discussion was is 10,000 pages with no centralization you know, you can't control it so I think that was the true nature of the discussion.

And I think we've shown that it's not working to ask people to work together on There are all different ways of doing things and people don't respond when they're asked for information for the website. I agree it's stronger, but I don't think it's incorrect

So I would just strike that if we need a motion, I'll move to strike that edit.

Anything else Colette?

yeah if you go down to approximately line 160 under 140 Western Road it uses Megan's name there but it should be Miss Jop so that's twice and then if you go down to approximately line 207 under Town Hall Interior Art Update I actually prefer to leave that. I don't want to strike that because I think it's important that we had only had one discussion and there were some questions raised, so I'd prefer to lead that And I believe that's what you said It was what I said

and the same is true under the war memorial I think we had a discussion it can cause uneven surfaces because what was reported to us as staff had gone out to fix some of the masonry and couldn't find the unevenness because it was dependent on weather so again I feel that those edits, I'd prefer not to have those edits.

Megan, do you know whether it's current damage or the potential for damage?

So when we went out there so if we went right now I bet they would be loose because we've been in a drought condition. As we get more humidity in the air as we go into fall, when we had been out there prior to the... Veterans Day event last year when I was out there with cricket. We couldn't find anything moving because it had been rehydrated, but I do believe if we went out there right now, there would be probably some failing, so...

And we have had big pieces of mortar come out when people step on it.

Yeah, we had that on one of the steps up a big chunk come out at a public gathering. but I do feel it can be weather dependent. So typically by November we're okay from a wobbly standpoint, but it doesn't preclude... We did have the step break when we were there for a Veterans Day event.

So Colette, what about saying which has caused uneven surfaces depending on the weather?

or we can just say to address the failing masonry period and take the rest of it out if we don't agree on it.

I just don't... I think that's a great suggestion. That's fine too.

Yeah, so after masonry period and then take the rest of it out. and then down approximately line 235 under White's Pond. There's been a statement added in there to say if the NRC is interested in pursuing the acceptance of White's pond, I don't remember that it was dependent on that. I think we had a lot of discussion that we felt that we had to discuss it anyway at some point, so I don t necessarily agree with that addition.

I agree with you that we asked for more information and expected to talk further about it.

and so it wasn't dependent on the NRC being interested because you know, it's moving forward as a citizens petition we might want to know more about it so I would just suggest striking that edit

Megan, I've heard White Pond and White's Pond.

I don't know the answer to that, but I will find out and we can correct it generally. Let me see what we have on the map which is... It's white. How do they spell it though?

W-I-G-H-T-S No apostrophe.

Okay good, okay. Colette anything else? No, that's it on that set. Anybody else have any comments on the 22nd?

I had one comment.

Go ahead Kenny.

Right in the intro in the call to order, it says the meeting was not recorded as it was a working retreat and that is not in fact the case. So we need to change that.

Do we want to say video? Is that okay?

Did we record the meeting?

It was recorded.

We didn't announce that though, right?

I don't think so.

No, we didn't because that's not what's in my notes but I think not televised is accurate.

Anything else, Kenny? Okay, anything else on the 22nd? All right, anything on August 17th? I do. Go ahead Colette.

So on lane 112 It says, sorry I'll wait till Megan brings it up. So on line 112, when it says asked whether the board had previously discussed outsourcing. I think that's actually a better representation of what has actually happened because the board has several times discussed outsourcing of the weights and measures to the Norfolk County. So, I mean that's why it was worded that way.

We have discussed it. Megan had advised us several times that Jack was retiring and that we were looking to whether we could outsource it, and we'd had a previous discussion about it.

When did we have that discussion? Because I'm unfamiliar with it.

So we had it several times, I think in a retreat and at least once in public session because I had asked if we could put as a review of the the money that we pay to the county I think it's a significant amount of money that would be paid to the County and whether we were getting value for money for that. And Megan has always responded that she believed it would be an something we would look into with the weights and measures when Mr Walsh retired because it's hard to hire, and then the county was providing that service. We've had that discussion at least three times.

This is an accurate representation of what I said at the meeting, though. And that's what minutes are for.

It's not for... We had this discussion before when if there's something it said that's incorrect we don't necessarily want to make that part of the record So we had this discussion, I think two weeks ago. And I believe that's in our policy. So something is said that's incorrect you try and correct it in the moment but you don't want to factor into the record so that's why I thought this was a better... I think you asked whether the board had discussed it and I think that's a better representation of the actual situation because if you say why the board has not discussed it, there is no correction that that's not true.

I apologize, what was the edit that you were suggesting?

So when it says she asked the why I think it should stay as she asked whether the board had previously discussed not why the board has not previously discussed So undo the whether being eliminated and the adding of why, and undo the adding not. and then at the very end on line 125 when it says as it's technically a deviation from the language in MGL I don't think that's necessary because I think I don't think that's the case. Again, for the same reason we had an opinion that it was acceptable so I don' t think that is helpful to put in there

They did actually agree to that Colette at the meeting. I went back and watched it so I would like that included, and I did actually say that I don't believe we should rewrite what happened Can I make a comment Marjorie?

Go ahead, Kenny. I'm going to say what I said the last time. The minutes are there to memorialize what happened not whether or not what happened is right or wrong and when we go through this exercise of, well that might not be right. I have no idea factually what we're saying is accurate at the moment but there's things that are black and white, right and wrong. And then there's a lot of gray in the middle. And when we start editorializing I think we're going down a bad path. I think The Minute should say What happened? Whether what was stated was accurate or not, it's what it was stated and I think it should say that.

I mean, and that's a fair opinion. But I do think that when you put something that's factually incorrect in the record, that's problematic. And we talked about that before in the minutes or not to record every single comment that's made. So, I mean it's up to the board to decide, not me.

I do looking at this, I do understand what you're saying, Kenny. And I think you're making a good point. But I think for example if the statement as it technically is a deviation from the language whether we said or not if it's incorrect that shouldn't be in here and my assumption is that our opinion from Tom Harrington establishes that it's not.

Well, and eliminating the last phrase does not diminish the fact that Beth wanted to be assured it was legally permissible.

I'm not opining on any particular thing here. I just think we should state what was said and if we need to put a footnote that says, FYI this is actually wrong then we should do it that way. But I think editorializing is a dangerous place to go.

but you know the minutes are a summary and it's a judgment that we make whether it's in a good summary or not so I would make a motion to remove this statement at the end of line 122 through 123 second

Kenny? No. Beth? No Tom? Yes Colette? Yes So I'd like to make a motion to amend can we say that Ms. Sullivan Woods indicated she wanted a legal opinion from town council confirming the arrangement is permissible before voting because she believed it to be a technical deviation from the language?

I'm fine with that. I'll second the amendment.

Okay, as amended?

Well what about because she believes it may be

I can't hear Kenny, Kenny your mic's not on.

Sorry. I think we get there because it's qualified with an opinion, which is she believes that it is a deviation. Right, and that's fair. She believes it maybe is not actually what she believed.

Right. All right, let's leave She Believes It Is. So we have an amended motion that's been seconded on the floor. Tom? Aye. Colette? Aye Kenny? Aye Beth? Aye Okay and I vote aye as well. Anything else, Collette?

I have no further edits. Okay.

All right. May we have a motion on the approval of the minutes?

Move to approve the minutes of July 22, 2026 and August 17, 2027 as amended. Second.

Beth?

Aye.

Tom? Aye Kenny? Aye Colette? Aye And I vote aye as well Okay, our next agenda item, let me just get there is executive session. I request a motion to enter into executive session with respect to negotiations with the Wellesley Patrol Officers Association Wellesley Superior Officers, Wellesly Firefighters IAFF Local 1795 Wellesle Library Staff Association and Welleslee Library Supervisor Association as well as to conduct strategy with respect to litigation on 40 Oakland Street.

will move to enter executive session, I think is it 4.37 p.m., and to invite Executive Director Megan Jopp, Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa, Human Resources Director Dolores Hamilton Town Council Tom Harrington, Special Counsel Nicholas Shapiro Alan Cloutier of Tyne Bond Police Chief Scott Whittemore Fire Chief Steve Mortarelli Library Director Jamie Jurgensen and Board of Library Trustee Chair Marla Robinson to join the meeting. Following the close of executive session, the board will return to open session for the sole purpose of adjourning the meeting Entering Executive Session under Mass General Law, Chapter 38, Subsection 21E3 to conduct strategy. with respect to negotiations with the Wellesley Police Patrol Officers Association, Wellesly Firefighters IAFF Local 1795

Wellsley Library Staff Association and Wellesley Library Supervisor Association, and to conduct strategy with respect to litigation with the Commonwealth regarding 40 Oakland Street.

And Wellesleys Superior Officers?

And Wellseys Superior officers.

Okay thank you.

Second.

Kenny, Tom, Colette, Beth and I vote aye as well. Thank you everybody we will be back at 530 next Tuesday September 29th