Select Board October 16, 2025

October 16, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

Meeting Minutes: Wellesley Select Board

Meeting Title: Select Board Meeting Meeting Date: October 16, 2025 Governing Body: Wellesley Select Board Type of Meeting: Regular Meeting

Attendees:

  • Marjorie Freiman, Select Board Member (Chair)
  • Tom Ulfelder, Select Board Member (Vice Chair)
  • Colette Aufranc, Select Board Member (via Zoom)
  • Beth Sullivan Woods, Select Board Member
  • Kenneth Largess, Select Board Member
  • Meghan Jop, Executive Director
  • Corey Testa, Assistant Executive Director
  • Eric Russell, Town Council
  • Chris Heap, Town Council

Executive Summary

The Wellesley Select Board convened on October 16, 2025, to address several key municipal matters. Major items included the approval of a Class 1 auto dealer's license, a detailed discussion and vote on a transportation recommendation for the 49 Walnut Street PSI Project, and an extensive discussion on legal and procedural matters concerning the DCAM disposition of 40 Oakland Street (MassBay Community College land). The Board also approved FY27 budget guidelines with minor modifications. The meeting concluded with a motion to enter executive session to discuss potential litigation strategy regarding the MassBay land disposition.

I. Call to Order & Citizen Speak (Non-Agenda Items)

  • Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chair Marjorie Freiman in the Giuliani Room at Town Hall. The meeting was aired live on wellesleymedia.org, Comcast Channel 8, and Verizon Channel 40.
  • Citizen Speak (Non-Agenda Items): No citizens requested to speak on non-agenda items. Comments regarding MassBay were deferred to the relevant agenda item.

II. Executive Director's Report

  • Recognition of Linda Schelling: Executive Director Meghan Jop recognized Linda Schelling for 30 years of service to the Town of Wellesley, highlighting her contributions to the Planning Department.
  • Facilitated Dialogue Sign-up: Reminder that the sign-up deadline for the Wellesley Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force and Wellesley Civil Discourse Initiative's facilitated dialogue, "Many Traditions, One Community: A Conversation About Belonging in Wellesley," is October 17th at 5 PM.
    • In-person session: October 27th at 6 PM.
    • Zoom session: October 30th at 6:30 PM.
  • Upcoming Flu Clinics:
    • October 22nd: Upham School, 10 AM - 12 PM.
    • October 30th: Wellesley Free Library (Main Branch), 1 PM - 2:30 PM.
    • Eligible for ages 16+. Registration encouraged, walk-ins welcome.
  • Community Calendar: Encouraged residents to utilize and add events to the community calendar, noting several Halloween events, a Trails Committee walk, and political rallies this weekend.

III. Consent Agenda

  • Item: New Class 1 Auto Dealer's License Application for a new owner.
  • Discussion: Staff reviewed and supported approval. No public hearing or abutter's notice required. No request for removal from the consent agenda.
  • Motion: Select Board Member Colette Aufranc moved to approve the consent agenda.
  • Second: Select Board Member Beth Sullivan Woods seconded the motion.
  • Vote (Roll Call):
    • Beth Sullivan Woods: Aye
    • Tom Ulfelder: Aye
    • Kenneth Largess: Aye
    • Colette Aufranc: Aye
    • Marjorie Freiman: Aye
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

IV. Discussion and Vote: Transportation Recommendation to the Planning Board on PSI Project of Significant Impact Application 250-02, 49 Walnut Street

  • Background: The Select Board provides recommendations to the Planning Board, which is the special permit granting authority for Projects of Significant Impact (PSI). This project involves a multi-faceted permitting process including Design Review, PSI, Site Plan Review (Zoning Board of Appeals), and Floodplain Special Permit (Zoning Board of Appeals). Wetlands review is also anticipated.
  • Previous Discussion: The Board reviewed a draft recommendation previously and requested additional information.
  • Staff Update (Meghan Jop):
    • The project proponent, Mr. Hassel, is present.
    • Town Council responded to questions regarding PSI.
    • Staff presented a revised draft recommendation.
    • The Planning Board is not bound by the Select Board's recommendation.
  • Discussion Points:
    • Plan Modifications (Beth Sullivan Woods): Inquired about changes to the plan since the last meeting.
    • Proponent Response (Mr. Hassel): Stated a new plan showing traffic and pedestrian flow was submitted to the Planning Board, incorporating a crosswalk and path to the footbridge and Walnut Street. Density and massing remain unchanged.
    • Land Underwater Calculation (Beth Sullivan Woods): Questioned if land underwater was included in the 17 units per acre calculation. Mr. Hassel confirmed the lot size from the survey, including land underwater, was used.
    • Traffic Flow Updates (Beth Sullivan Woods): Requested to see updates to the traffic flow plan due to its primary importance for safety.
    • Fire Department Recommendations (Meghan Jop): The Fire Inspector recommended modifying the building to allow for a circular turnaround for apparatus staging and circulation, which would be a site plan matter.
    • Pedestrian Access (Kenneth Largess): Expressed concern about the proposed pedestrian path, questioning the feasibility of easements and the safety of children walking to Schofield School, particularly the indirect route.
    • Pedestrian Safety Concerns (Beth Sullivan Woods): Reiterated discomfort with the lack of safe passage for children off-site, deeming it dangerous.
    • Student Projections (Marjorie Freiman): Noted projections of fewer than 10 K-12 students for the development, based on 0.28 school-aged children per 2-3 bedroom unit in similar multi-family projects.
    • Public Safety Vehicle Access (Marjorie Freiman): Emphasized the need for strong recommendations regarding adequate access for multiple public safety vehicles.
    • Garage Flooding & EV Charging (Marjorie Freiman): Raised concerns about the safety of electric vehicle charging stations in a garage prone to flooding.
    • Public Access along Riverfront (Beth Sullivan Woods): Advocated for stronger recommendations on public accessibility along the entire Charles Riverway.
    • Fencing along Charles River (Tom Ulfelder): Suggested requiring fencing along the Charles River due to safety concerns, especially for children.
    • Fire Department Review (Tom Ulfelder): Inquired about the Wellesley Fire Department's review and conclusions regarding the plan. Meghan Jop stated the Fire Inspector was satisfied with vehicular access and egress with the condition of a circular turnaround, to be further reviewed during site plan.
    • Pedestrian Path Details (Kenneth Largess): Clarified that the proposed pedestrian path is a painted line, not a physical sidewalk, and questioned its width. Mr. Hassel confirmed it would be a painted line, approximately 40 inches to 4 feet wide.
    • Cooperative Approach (Marjorie Freiman): Stressed the need for a cooperative approach with other property owners to solve pedestrian safety issues as the area develops.
  • Public Comment:
    • Elise Chismadia (63 River Street): Highlighted existing traffic gridlock at River, Walnut, and Cedar Streets, stating the project would worsen it. Advocated for traffic mitigation on River Street (e.g., speed bumps) and a post-occupancy traffic study. Emphasized the need for safe routes for children and public access along the river.
    • Kara Reinhart Block (Precinct D Town Meeting Member): Expressed concern about the 19-foot width of the road near the old mill building, questioning the feasibility of a bi-directional road with a painted pedestrian path. Suggested exploring a one-way traffic ecosystem for the entire property and addressing road disrepair.
    • Neil Glick (89 River Street): Focused on public access to the river and traffic on River Street. Stated that 13,000 sq ft of the lot is under the Charles River. Argued for public access along the Charles River, citing support from NRC, DPW, DRB, and Charles River Watershed Association, and the DCR's historical insistence on public access in similar projects. Advocated for speed tables on River Street.
    • Leanne Lawler (66 River Street): Expressed concerns about increased traffic on Walnut and River Streets, turning River Street into a cut-through. Highlighted the narrow road's inability to handle two-way traffic and emergency vehicles. Emphasized the lack of sidewalks for residents and the need to prioritize current residents' safety.
    • Patty Quigley (Precinct D): Supported the project but stressed the importance of pedestrian safety and traffic direction. Criticized the proposed pedestrian path as impractical and advocated for a sidewalk up the driveway to Walnut Street. Highlighted the existing traffic issues on Walnut and River Streets.
  • Board Discussion & Motion:
    • Strengthening Recommendations (Beth Sullivan Woods): Proposed strengthening the recommendation to include:
      1. Critical importance of a post-occupancy traffic study, specifically including River Street.
      2. Stronger evaluation of traffic flow, including one-way options.
      3. Strong statement on public access along the waterway.
    • Sidewalk Requirement (Kenneth Largess): Advocated for a strong recommendation that the project should not proceed without a physical sidewalk connecting to Walnut Street.
    • Executive Director's Commitment (Meghan Jop): Committed to strengthening the recommendation letter based on all feedback received.
  • Motion: Select Board Member Tom Ulfelder moved to approve the traffic impact assessment prepared by MDM Transportation Consultants Inc. as being professionally prepared, and to issue a recommendation letter for the Planning Board as prepared, authorizing the Executive Director to work with the Chair of the Select Board to strengthen recommendations, responding to feedback held at the Select Board's meeting of October 16, 2025.
  • Second: Select Board Member Beth Sullivan Woods seconded the motion.
  • Vote (Roll Call):
    • Colette Aufranc: Aye
    • Kenneth Largess: No (prefers to see the strengthened recommendation before approval)
    • Beth Sullivan Woods: No (prefers to vote on Tuesday after seeing the strengthened recommendation)
    • Tom Ulfelder: Aye
    • Marjorie Freiman: Aye
  • Outcome: The motion passed (3-2). The Executive Director and Chair will incorporate all feedback into the recommendation letter.

V. Discussion: Legal and Procedural Matters Regarding DCAM Disposition of 40 Oakland Street (MassBay Community College Land)

  • Background (Marjorie Freiman):
    • The Commonwealth's Affordable Homes Act (Section 122) streamlines the disposition of surplus state land for housing.
    • MassBay Trustees declared 45 acres surplus. DCAM is charged with its disposition.
    • This is a state mandate, not initiated by the Town of Wellesley.
    • Wellesley has fulfilled its Housing Production Plan and passed inclusionary zoning and an affordable housing trust.
    • The Select Board requested an environmental impact review from the Commonwealth Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
    • DCAM will delay the RFP release to allow Wellesley to conduct a town-wide visioning session, expecting input by Q1 2026 for RFP incorporation by February/March.
    • DCAM will consult with EOHLC on the visioning session.
    • A parking study is underway, with results expected mid-November.
    • DCAM acknowledges the importance of forest protection and will explore permanent restrictions on a majority of the site, but 180 housing units must still be permitted.
  • Town Council Presentation (Eric Russell & Chris Heap):
    • Question 1: What if the state sold the land to the town or to investors? Could purchasers do whatever they wanted with the land?
      • Response: If the Affordable Housing Act (AHA) process is used, the land must be used for housing purposes.
    • Question 2: What does the 30-day notice actually mean?
      • Response: This refers to a 30-day period for the municipality to respond to a notice that land is proposed to be declared surplus and sold for housing. It's a public comment period for the town to weigh in on the RFP contents and reuse restrictions. The town has not yet received this notice.
    • Question 3: Can the land be considered Article 97 land because it abuts Article 97 land? Can the town have it declared as Article 97 land?
      • Response: Abutting Article 97 land does not automatically make it Article 97 land. The town has requested a review from EOEEA regarding Article 97 status.
    • Question 4: Has Section 122 of the Affordable Homes Act been tested in court?
      • Response: No, it is a very new law with no related litigation.
    • Question 5: Is it possible to distinguish this declaration of surplus land from that in other jurisdictions because such a large portion of it is undeveloped forest land?
      • Response: The AHA does not make such distinctions.
    • Question 6: Is there any protection from development on wetlands even in a buffer?
      • Response: DCAM has taken the position that the Wetlands Protection Act does not apply under this section in other communities.
    • Question 7: Could a town acquire land designated as surplus from the Commonwealth by eminent domain?
      • Response: No, a town cannot take state-owned land by eminent domain.
    • Question 8: What would be the best way for the town to communicate with MassDOT about traffic mitigation issues?
      • Response: The Town DPW has contacts with MassDOT. Reaching out to representatives is also suggested. MassDOT has jurisdiction over Route 9.
    • Question 9: Does the statute prohibit the town from asking DCAM to pay for funding either partially or fully municipal planning exercises to participate in negotiations?
      • Response: The statute does not prohibit this.
    • Question 10: What is the mechanism for establishing a committee of subject matter specialists that are not elected to evaluate key negotiating and litigating strategies?
      • Response: A board can appoint a subcommittee, which would be subject to Open Meeting Law and Public Record Law. Individuals can meet and offer input.
    • Question 11: If the project requires infrastructure upgrades, is the state or developer required to pay the municipality for that work?
      • Response: The statute is silent. The RFP would likely control, with the state typically placing this responsibility on the developer.
    • Question 12: Can DCAM negotiate with MassDOT and MassBay for roadway improvements to Route 9 and traffic flow changes as part of the design pre-RFP phase, or is that the responsibility of the developer or the municipality after the bid is awarded?
      • Response: There is no prohibition against DCAM negotiating with MassDOT in advance.
    • Question 13: Is release of the RFP dependent on the outcome of the parking study and documenting that MassBay can park cars on the campus?
      • Response: No.
    • Question 14: Up to what point can MassBay recall the land as non-surplus and what is the process for that?
      • Response: Within 60 days of the President's determination, the MassBay Board of Trustees can disapprove it. Otherwise, no specific process in the statute. DCAM might walk away if MassBay determined a use for the property.
    • Question 15: If the town is allowed to reasonably control building massing, scale, and setbacks, does that effectively allow us to control unit size?
      • Response: This would allow indirect control over unit size.
    • Question 16: Can the town restrict or mandate minimum parking requirements?
      • Response: No. Parking was specifically omitted from Section 122, unlike the Dover Amendment.
    • Question 17: Is age-restricted housing allowable within or under the Affordable Homes Act?
      • Response: Yes.
    • Question 18: Is a continuing care facility allowable?
      • Response: Unlikely, as it does not align with the single-family or multi-family housing envisioned by the Act.
    • Question 19: Is the project required to meet our stretch energy code guidelines or is that a negotiation point?
      • Response: The project would likely be required to meet Stretch Energy Code guidelines, though DCAM has taken positions against other statutes (e.g., Wetlands Protection Act).
  • Board Discussion:
    • Dover Amendment & Campus Oversight (Tom Ulfelder): Questioned the extent of town oversight on MassBay's campus projects. Chris Heap clarified that state entities are exempt from town building and zoning regulations.
  • Public Comment:
    • John Richardson (152 Oakland Street): Supported expanded housing but believed other town spaces were more appropriate. Criticized DCAM's fast-track approach, lack of research, and sidestepping of town oversight. Highlighted the project's inappropriateness for the neighborhood, traffic gridlock, and loss of forest/conservation land. Suggested DCAM repurpose other state properties. Expressed concern about the town being stuck with a large development, forest loss, and MassBay's project failing due to lack of state funding and outdated cost estimates. Urged the Board to reject the "build first, sort out details later" plan.
    • Hall White: Suggested the Board leverage the town's oversight of MassBay's campus project (cybersecurity building) to influence the housing project. Argued that if the housing project proceeds without town input, it could jeopardize approval for the campus project.
    • Leanne Liebman (31 Hampshire Road, Town Meeting Member, via Zoom): Referenced Representative Peitsch's statement that the state welcomes town input and understands the need for time. Criticized the Select Board's 3-2 vote to hire consultants for $75,000 without competitive bidding or seeking appropriation from Free Cash at Town Meeting, bypassing public input. Urged reconsideration for open government and inclusivity.
    • Susan Freed (via Zoom): Advocated for linking biking and walking paths from Oakland Street to Washington Street, noting the property blocks many passages and is used to access Centennial Reservation. Stressed the importance of planning for this connectivity.
    • Jen Beechel (190 Oakland Street): Thanked the Board for listening. Highlighted the different concerns from neighborhoods abutting Centennial and MassBay. Questioned the state's recognition of the Sisters of Charity's sacrifice and their exclusion from the process. Requested a financial analysis of the cost-benefit of tax income versus infrastructure costs (schools, environment) over 5 years.
    • Judith Barr (Precinct C Town Meeting Member, Vice President Wellesley Conservation Land Trust): Argued for "housing and conservation," not "housing only." Stated the land is not underutilized or surplus from a conservation perspective. Cited Governor Healey's Affordable Home Act and the state's 2025 Biodiversity Conservation Goal (30% land protection by 2030) and Climate Forestry Plan. Advocated for building appropriate housing on the 5-acre parking lot and permanently conserving the 40-acre forest.
    • Catherine Stanley (via Zoom): Advocated for allocating surplus land for an integrated work-life community for people with complex disabilities, citing High Spirit East as a model. Emphasized the need for safe housing and work options for disabled adults, especially wheelchair users. Stated this model addresses housing and staffing crises, costs less than group homes, and offers better outcomes.
    • Leslie Hanrahan: Presented slides illustrating density options. Used DCAM's Hathon example (190 units on 12 acres) to show that building 180 units on the 5-acre parking lot would require a 10-15 story building, or a significant portion of the forest if a lower-density option (like Fieldstone, 4 units/acre) is chosen. Advocated for removing the 40-acre forest from the calculation and starting with a vision of 20 units on the 5-acre parking lot.
    • Raina McManus: Argued that the MassBay forest should be protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, citing the City of Westfield case where public use can dedicate land as a public park. Questioned if Town Council reviewed the NRC, Trails Committee, and DPW history with the MassBay Forest, given decades of stewardship and public recreation use. Asked if the town could appeal to the EEA for Article 97 status.
    • Unidentified Speaker: Supported the visioning study but emphasized that the primary goal is to stop or severely limit the project. Urged the Board to use public pressure, personal influence, and legal challenges to push the state for a concrete timeline, a cap on units (e.g., 180), and a commitment to the town's concerns before compromising.
    • Sue McKay (186 Oakland Street): Expressed concern about losing biodiverse land for housing in a dense neighborhood. Questioned alternatives to selling the forest for MassBay's funding. Stated that Wellesley has met affordable housing criteria and that more housing at this location is unjustified. Highlighted the unsuitability of Oakland Street for increased traffic.
    • Jennifer Seidman (225 Oakland Street): Requested a safety study for Oakland Street, particularly for pedestrians, before engaging with a builder. Invited Board members and state officials to observe pedestrian conditions on Oakland Street between 8-9 AM.
  • Board Discussion & Next Steps:
    • Consultant Scope of Services (Beth Sullivan Woods): Inquired about the timeline for reviewing the consultant's scope of services. Meghan Jop stated a preliminary draft was received, and she is seeking to shorten the 9-10 week timeline to have a report by end of January. The Board will review the scope of services at the October 21st meeting.
    • Soliciting Other Bids (Beth Sullivan Woods): Questioned if the Board is open to soliciting other bids for consultants, given the less rushed timeline. Marjorie Freiman stated the Board would first review the current scope of services and emphasized the need to act promptly.
    • Timeline Discrepancy (Kenneth Largess): Noted the discrepancy between the state's "first quarter" timeline and the need for a quick consultant report. Marjorie Freiman clarified that the state's timeline is a range, and the town must prepare for the earlier end of that range.
    • Partnership with DCAM (Tom Ulfelder): Expressed belief that DCAM wants to partner with the town, but Marjorie Freiman countered that the town must advocate for its best interests and cannot assume DCAM will incorporate all concerns without strong advocacy.
    • Prudence vs. Speed (Colette Aufranc): Emphasized the need for the town to move with purpose and speed, matching the state's pace, to avoid being left behind, while also doing due diligence.
    • Lack of Specifics from DCAM (Marjorie Freiman): Reiterated that DCAM has not provided definitive timelines or unit numbers despite repeated inquiries.
    • Town-wide Visioning Session: The Board will proceed with a town-wide visioning session in early December (date and location to be announced) to gather community input for the RFP.

VI. Discussion and Vote: FY27 Budget Guidelines

  • Background: Preliminary individual guidelines were presented, with the CFO and Executive Director continuing to review budgets.
  • Executive Director Presentation (Meghan Jop):
    • Presented a table with refined budget guidelines, aiming for an overarching goal of 3% increase.
    • Modifications:
      • Climate Action: 2% (no step increases).
      • IT: 8% (rising subscription costs).
      • Treasurer and Collector: Higher than 3% (steps, potential overtime, longevity).
      • Audit Committee: 20% increase (bid year for annual financial comprehensive report, based on historical contract increases).
      • Council on Aging: Slightly over 3% (hours).
      • Facilities Management: 5% (similar to last year, due to utilities; MLP contemplating rate change).
      • Union Negotiations: 0% COLA initially, with existing steps escalated. Funds for union settlements pooled separately. Police at 0.5%, Fire at 1.5% (due to junior employees).
      • Town Clerk: 3% for personal services and expenses, but noted an additional $75,000 for three elections in FY27.
      • Human Resources: Slightly increased expenses for ArcCD trial (contract evaluation tool).
      • Police: 4% for expenses (hybrid cruiser costs).
      • Library: 3.5% for expenses (computer software licensing), also noted a shift from two part-time to one full-time position.
      • NRC: Slightly over 3% (steps).
      • Schools: 3% for both personal services and expenses.
    • Capital Financing: Low end of range at 6.2%.
  • Board Discussion:
    • Town Report & Celebrations Committee (Kenneth Largess): Questioned 0% increase for Town Report (due to reduced printing) and Celebrations Committee. Advocated for a 3% increase for Celebrations Committee expenses, citing rising costs for equipment and services.
    • Celebrations Committee Funding (Tom Ulfelder): Argued against an increase, stating the committee fundraises significantly and received increases last year.
    • Cultural Council (Colette Aufranc): Advocated for a 2-3% increase for both Celebrations Committee and Cultural Council to avoid future funding shortfalls and support their initiatives.
    • Morse's Pond & West Suburban Veterans District (Kenneth Largess): Questioned why these departments received 3% increases while Celebrations Committee did not, given similar cost pressures.
    • Subscription Costs (Kenneth Largess): Inquired about the specific amount of subscription costs. Meghan Jop did not have the exact figure but noted it includes various software and services.
    • Union Negotiations (Colette Aufranc): Suggested clarifying that the 3% target for municipal departments (including those under union negotiations) aligns with the town-wide financial plan.
    • Fixed Expectations (Beth Sullivan Woods): Asked about calculating non-union and union steps to understand the fixed expectation before negotiations. Meghan Jop confirmed this is done.
  • Motion: Select Board Member Colette Aufranc moved to set the capital funding guideline at 6.2% of budgeted recurring operating revenues in accordance with the capital financing policy; to set a 2% cost of living or COLA increase for all exempt and non-exempt non-union employees; and to establish individualized operating budget guidelines for personal services and expenses for the municipal departments as discussed at the October 16th Select Board meeting, and to set a 3% guideline for personal services and expenses for the school committee.
  • Second: Select Board Member Beth Sullivan Woods seconded the motion.
  • Vote (Roll Call):
    • Kenneth Largess: Aye
    • Colette Aufranc: Aye
    • Beth Sullivan Woods: Aye
    • Tom Ulfelder: Aye
    • Marjorie Freiman: Aye
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).

VII. Town-wide Letter & Annual Report

  • Discussion: Chair Marjorie Freiman requested to review the latest iteration of the Town-wide Letter and the Annual Report at the next meeting (October 21st) due to time constraints.

VIII. Chair's Report

  • Advisory Committee Update:
    • Informed about budget guidelines vote and MassBay information.
    • Advisory Committee report going to printer October 22nd.
  • School Committee Update:
    • Directing staff to prepare three budgets: 3% guidance, level service, and strategic plan/critical needs.
    • Discussed MCAS results (few municipalities back to 2019 levels).
    • Negotiation planning meeting with union in early November.
    • Noted a number of students are sick, but fewer are testing for COVID.
  • Town-wide Capital Planning Committee: Colette Aufranc requested any remaining comments on the Town-wide Capital Planning Committee to be submitted by the weekend for the upcoming Policy Subcommittee meeting.

IX. Executive Session

  • Purpose: To conduct strategy regarding potential litigation with the Commonwealth regarding the disposition of surplus MassBay Community College land.
  • Motion: Select Board Member Tom Ulfelder moved to enter executive session under Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A, Exemption Number 3, to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding the disposition of surplus MassBay Community College land, and to invite Megan Jopp, Corey Testa, and Town Council to join, as the Chair has declared that having such discussions in open session would have a detrimental effect on the town's position. Following the adjournment of the executive session, the board will return to open session for the sole purpose of adjourning the meeting.
  • Second: Select Board Member Beth Sullivan Woods seconded the motion.
  • Vote (Roll Call):
    • Beth Sullivan Woods: Aye
    • Kenneth Largess: Aye
    • Colette Aufranc: Aye
    • Tom Ulfelder: Aye
    • Marjorie Freiman: Aye
  • Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
  • Note: Discussions in executive session will not be made public until the Board deems it appropriate.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned following the executive session.

Last updated: Dec 7, 2025

Back to Meetings