Select Board October 16, 2025

Okay, just turned 730. Good evening. I'd like to call to order the October 16th meeting of the Wellesley Select Board in the Giuliani Room at Town Hall. The meeting is being aired live on wellesleymedia.org, Comcast Channel 8, and Verizon Channel 40, and will also be available for later viewing on Wellesley Media. and select board members present here at Town Hall, our Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Secretary Colette O'Frank is on Zoom. Thank you, Colette. Beth Sullivan-Woods, and Kenny Largess are here with us. Also here are Executive Director Megan Jopp and Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa. We know we have many residents here who would like to speak tonight. Citizen speak tonight will be on any matter that is not on the agenda. There are some comments people want to make about MassBay.

Whatever the comments are about MassBay, we will take under the MassBay agenda item, okay, not during Citizen Speak. It just makes for a smoother process. So with that said, is anybody here who would like to speak to the board on a non-agenda item? Okay, great. Seeing none, we'll turn to Megan for the executive director's report, please.

Thanks, Marjorie. I just have a few items. First, I'd like to take a moment to recognize Linda Schelling, who on Wednesday celebrated 30 years of service with the town of Wellesley. Linder has been the quarterstone of the planning department, keeping things running smoothly, supporting the planning board. and providing exceptional service to residents and staff alike. And we just wanted to congratulate Linda and thank her for her three decades of dedication and professionalism to the town. We also had a couple reminders that the sign-up for the facilitated dialogue is ending tomorrow at 5 p.m. So the Wellesley Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force and the Wellesley Civil Discourse Initiative for many traditions, one community, a conversation about belonging in Wellesley which is a facilitated dialogue discussing how we come together to celebrate and observe cultural and religious traditions in our community.

Those are happening in person on October 27th at 6 p.m. and on Zoom on Thursday, October 30th at 6.30. Space is limited and so again sign up is deadline is tomorrow at 5 p.m. Also just wanted to alert folks to some upcoming flu clinics. Those are eligible for people ages 16 plus. clinic dates and locations are at October 22nd, the Upham School from 10 a.m. to noon. or October 30th at the Wellesley Free Library main branch from 1 to 2 30. Registrations encourage but walk-ins are welcome and if you'd like to register you can go online or you can call the health department. the other thing I just wanted to remind folks about is our community calendar this weekend in particular there's a number of events that people can attend from Halloween events at Linden Square.

I got a walk with the Trails Committee at Boulder Brook Reservation or political rallies. So you can find out, you know, what group you may be interested is doing. And we also encourage folks to be sure to add events to the community calendar and it hopefully will evolve to a great resource it's already a pretty good resource right now but we'd encourage folks to add things

Okay, thank you, Megan. Our next agenda item is a consent agenda item, which is a new Class 1 auto dealer's license application for a new owner. Staff have reviewed the application and support approval, and no public hearing or abutter's notice was required. Has anyone requested removal of that item, Megan? No. Okay. Colette, could I have a motion, please?

So moved to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Beth?

Aye.

Tom?

Aye.

Kenny?

Aye.

Colette? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Okay. We have to do a roll call vote because one of our members is on Zoom. We don't always have to do that if we're all here. Okay. Our next agenda item is to discuss and vote a transportation recommendation to the Planning Board on PSI Project of Significant Impact Application 250-02. located at 49 Walnut Street. This board makes a recommendation to the planning board on items within our purview. We are not the permitting authority. So we reviewed a draft recommendation last week, decided we wanted a little bit of additional information, have done some more work, and Megan will tell us about the new draft tonight.

So thanks Marjorie. Just to build on I think a little bit of what you just said with regards to the process. So this is a multifaceted permitting process. the select board issues a recommendation with regards to a subset of the seven criteria under the project of significant impact. The planning board is the special permit granting authority. So this project will go through design review, which is underway currently with the design review board. will go through the project of significant impact process with the planning board. Following that, it will also require site plan review with the zoning board of appeals. and a floodplain special permit also granted by the Zorning Board of Appeals. They may open those public hearings simultaneously but they would be two separate special permits that would be granted for the particular site.

so this is sort of one facet of oh and I left off actually they also have wetlands review I did check with our wetlands administrator to see if they had filed the notice of intent yet. And it's our understanding that they have not filed the notice of intent yet. I was just looking on the list to see the project proponent is here who can answer any questions. So we did go through all the questions that were asked. We had our Transportation Mobility Manager, I know, walked the site and the Wade, Tiscofield School with a resident. And so, you know, we have looked at all the questions. I know Town Council has responded to Kenny's question that was asked with regards to PSI. And so...

the staff has put forward a draft recommendation and so we'd be seeking either approval or denial of that or modification or and anywhere in between, you know, where you could amend that.

Okay, thank you, Megan. And our recommendation will go to the Planning Board, which is free to accept or not accept our recommendation. If we decide not to pass on a recommendation, they will continue with the process without our input. So are there comments or questions, Beth?

So we had very extensive conversations about this. And one of the takeaways I had and one of the reasons I was glad that we deferred voting was that it sounded as if the developer was working on modifications to the plan and things weren't finalized but they were in process. Have there been changes made to the plan that we've seen?

Not that I'm aware of, but Mr. Hassel, I know you're on the Zoom. I don't know if you want to address that.

Sure. Thank you, Megan. And Beth, so to answer your question, we are in the process of looking at a bunch of different things that will come up during our the rest of our PSI process and site plan review. As for now, I did submit a new plan that just kind of shows the traffic and pedestrian flow. that we've gotten permission to do from our abutting from our abutting property owners so that's the major change for now any of the other stuff is sort of aesthetic ongoing aesthetic things with the design review board but other than that the project Its density and its massing is pretty much the same that it was, or exactly the same that it was the last time we met.

Joe, did you submit that to the planning board? Because this board didn't receive a copy of that. I did not receive a copy of that.

Okay, I had sent it to you in an email. I responded to one of your emails letting me know when this was, so I don't know if it... for some reason didn't go through. But yes, the planning board has a copy of that as well.

Okay, let me look and see if it's online while we're talking.

I could See if I can bring it up and share my screen.

One second. Marjorie, while Joe's doing that, I was asked a question I don't think is part of either our site plan or PSI, but there was a question about the calculations to get to the unit count. and whether the land underwater was used toward the 17 units per acre. I know it's a very odd question, but Joe, do you have a sense of if the property underwater is part of what qualified for the 17 units an acre?

I know that whatever the, I just don't have that in front of me either, I apologize, but whatever the survey is, whatever the lot size is, is what was used for the calculation.

So that includes, I believe, the land underwater.

It may. I just... I apologize I'm just trying to get this other thing here.

For members of the board, is what Mr. Hassell is looking for something you want to ask questions about, have remaining questions about?

I would like to see the updates to the traffic flow because that was a primary question that we had about the safety and the way the traffic was going to be accommodated and flowed on the parcel.

and our recommendations on those points have been expanded.

Say that again, Marguerite?

Our recommendations have been expanded since our last meeting on this.

Yes, slightly. We also, as part of our re-review with the traffic committee, had our fire inspector join us and one of the recommendations is to provide a this actually wouldn't be a PSI it would be a site plan matter but to bring the building back so that you could have a What am I going to call that? Like a turnaround in front of the building. Right now it's somewhat boxy, and we do think that you could modify the building and push that back slightly to allow for our apparatus to stage and circulate back out to the other side.

Any luck, Mr. Hassel?

It's like, let me see if I can do it this way. Hold on.

Do we have any other questions in the meantime?

Oh, here we go. Zoom in here. Can you guys see that?

So, Megan, where is the turnaround?

So we already have a turnaround here. So it's a hammerhead turn.

It requires a hammerhead turnaround, though. So we want to see that more circular nature. That won't be for PSI, but that would be for site plan. So pull the landscaping back to allow the trucks to... You may have to decrease the size of the building in the front.

Oh, okay. Beth, anything further?

I don't understand what the change was. I apologize, Mr. Hassel, but I'm not as facile with identifying changes on the map.

Sure. So can you see my cursor moving?

Yes.

So what we have now is before our sidewalk and our egress just kind of stopped right here. We've since gotten permission to have a crosswalk here. and have a path along the side here that goes not only to the footbridge but also goes out to a sidewalk comes to another crosswalk here and then goes out to a sidewalk and goes to Walnut so there will be no there'll be signs that there'll be no pedestrian access up and down this.

Through the driveway.

Correct.

Okay. Kenny?

Joe, does that do you have easements over that land?

We will. Yep. We already technically do, but getting this space additionally sort of allocated for this pedestrian walkway is what we have permission for now.

And have you looked into getting an easement over the driveway so that you could create a sidewalk going to Walnut Street? That just seems very difficult for kids to walk down. I don't know how you would take that path to get to Schofield.

Unfortunately just the space and stuff there, we won't have space or the ability to do an actual sidewalk there. It's just not something that we can do, but we can do what's shown here. We do have permission for this. and that is it is a pedestrian walkway that goes up to Walnut Street it just doesn't go up the other uh the other driveway the narrow one this is the wide one that walks along the river so We thought it was just a better flow, not only for the traffic and the safety that people have brought up, not only in your meeting, but others, but also goes right to the footbridge that goes to Washington Street or to Walnut Street where you can walk up towards Schofield or up towards you know towards 95 or take that turn on to Washington as well.

So Mr. Hassel help me a little bit here. So people can walk on a pedestrian path until you get to that vertical Block of Hedges or Trees, whatever that is. They get a little bit to the left of that, then they cross the pavement onto the sidewalk closer to Walnut Street.

So you mean here?

Once they get off the yellow path that you've drawn, where do they go?

Oh, so it's hard to see with this aerial view, but there is an actual already existing sidewalk here that goes past the front door of this building and out to Walnut Street.

Okay.

All right. Anything? Go ahead, Beth. Have you made progress on looking at public access along the riverfront?

Still working on that. It's a difficult...

Walnut Street, Schofield,

yeah just they would follow they would come out the door here follow this path here go up here you can follow the cursor right and then they come here go on this sidewalk and then they go this is all sidewalks here

So, Mr. Hassel, I think you also have children. There is no way that a child's going to go the opposite direction in the morning to go to school. I mean, they're going to... I don't know, my child was... like his mother kind of running right on the deadline there to get to school. That's the, you're going, you're backtracking. I thought they were going to go the other way. No, he has them going along the river over the bridge or onto Washington and then back up again. I don't, do you have any access, Mr. Hussle, do you have any access at the back of the building up toward the parking lot, the decked parking lot up? Do you have any right away there?

No. So we don't own or control any of the other land. This is what we've been given permission to do.

And could you just identify where the bus stop is? Because I understand that it's on Walnut up near River. That's the intention of what we've written up. So the children are going to walk the other direction and then come around and then go up?

I mean, they're essentially just instead of walking up a steep, narrow, one-way driveway, which we wouldn't want and don't have room for a sidewalk, they're walking... The way that it looks here, if you actually go there, it's not that detrimental. But I think the bus stop and everything is up here in front of this building. It might not be shown on this screen. but there's a crosswalk here and I think the bus stop is a little bit like maybe half a block past what's shown on the screen but I'm not 100% sure.

So I just want to add that the projections for the number of students living in this development is fewer than 10. And that's K to 12. So we're not talking about 40, 50 kids walking to school. And some of them could be in the upper grades. and many parents walk with their kids to school or drive their children to school. So we don't know how these eight children are going to get to school. I agree with Beth that it's not the most direct way. I was indicating the other way because you indicated there were crosswalks the other way. But we're not talking 40, 50 kids. Go ahead, Megan. Oh, I thought you wanted to say something.

No, just how to get that number. Okay. Many of our most recent multifamily projects, some have zero children. So Terraza in the main building has zero children. Bristol has zero children. the nines has school-aged children 45 or or so and so it equates for two and three bedroom units to approximately about 0.28 school age children per unit. So that's where, just as a point of clarification, that's where we get the eight kids.

I just want to clarify, it may be only two children. As a parent and an adult, it makes me very uncomfortable that we don't have safe passage for children off the site. I'm just going to put it out there I just don't find it to be if we're in charge of public safety this seems dangerous to me

So we're making the recommendation. It's incorporated in our recommendation. I think I'm going to move us to a vote. Go ahead, Kenny.

I echo what Beth said. Our job here is to assess pedestrian safety. and the impact of this project on pedestrian safety. We have traffic as well, but pedestrian safety is fundamental to it. And frankly, I think it's crazy to think that any child is gonna go over the river and through the woods to get back to where he or she started. They're going to go up that path. Any of you that have been on that driveway know that is extremely dangerous. You can see on their... there's two arrows where one of the building is that are basically on top of each other because it's so narrow you can't get two cars through there without one Stopping short and letting the other one go. So, you know, we obviously have very bad weather here and I think that's extremely dangerous and our job is to make sure that

the people in the town are protected and I can't imagine that if you can get an easement over the other property you can't get one out over the driveway I've driven it you could cut out that berm and put a sidewalk in but I just don't think this is safe. So follow that up kind of where it turns onto Walnut Street. There's a fence on one side and a berm on the other.

Okay, remember again, we are not the permitting authority. We can't say no to this. We can only make strong recommendations about our concerns. for pedestrian safety, and I believe they're fairly strong about our concerns about the driveway, about pedestrian safety, and the planning board is free to adopt our recommendations or not.

Marjorie, I had two other things that I believe our recommendation about the circulation of public safety vehicles should be stronger because when we send a fire truck We send an ambulance. We send a police car. And I don't know how the ambulance is getting off this site. if there is a fire truck there. So I would like that really strongly noted in here because our public safety goes as a Battalion or whatever, they show up. And I just don't see how that is going to work. in the same way as last time. I'm very concerned about the capacity of a fire truck to circumnavigate this building. I am also concerned and this could be just my safety instincts but if we know the garage is going to flood

How are the electric charging stations going to work in a garage that floods? Maybe that's not our area, but... it just seems unsafe to me and the last thing is I really would like a stronger recommendation on public accessibility along the entire stretch of the Riverway. This is a treasure in our community. One of the advantages of having a development there is having someone that would take the care to open that up and provide more access and perhaps more children might at least go that way.

Let's make sure our recommendation about access for public safety is adequate. We do send more than one vehicle on each call. I understand the building's pulled back. We'd like to see that there's enough access in and out in the event that we have more than one public safety vehicle there. Go ahead, Tom.

Just a few comments. Didn't the Wellesley Fire Department have an opportunity to review this plan? And what was their conclusion?

They thought at this point it meant everything when we had the fire inspector meet us with traffic review. That's what we talked about. So they can do a hammer herd. We would prefer it to be circular in nature so that you can stage and leave. they will continue to look at it through site plan and then they do a third party peer review at site plan they also bring in a third party peer review to look at the building

And so our experts in the fire department are satisfied in terms of vehicular access and egress. with the condition that we had placed in the recommendation. I also just want to say You know, Mr. Hassell has looked at how to resolve the pedestrian safety issue. I think that we are recognizing and pushing Joe to create, to your point, Kenny, easier access, more logical access for children. But I think we have to recognize that in terms of our responsibility that he has, in fact, where he could, sought out easements, sought out permission to find a safe route that isn't the driveway.

so there's been a change and I think that as long as our recommendations make clear that we think there ought to be a more direct route because that's more logical more consistent with with human behavior that we ought to be satisfied in terms of our recommendation. One thing that I would like to see is fencing between this project and the Charles River. I was down there a few days ago. and they're just, it's open to the water's edge. And I'm not sure given some of the child therapeutic services down there, how that's never come up. in terms of businesses. I think that any of us are drawn to water. Kids certainly, if they're bored, you know, would be drawn to watching the river flow and the activity that is on there.

So I think that fencing should be required, particularly where there are some really low level areas where you could walk right into the Charles River. Let me ask about the public access. I know this has come up and Beth is certainly bringing this up tonight. That's not a straightforward negotiation. I mean, it's multiple agencies that are involved in providing access. and as long as we're recommending that that's done, I think we have to recognize that that's not permission that's easily granted, I'm assuming. Is that correct?

I think he owns that land.

What?

With other property owners.

Well, just in general, aren't there state agencies that would be involved?

I believe he owns into the river.

Well, I think Mr. Hassel would want to make sure there may be an easement to the particular group because you want to be indemnified if you're providing public access. That's what we would do. We would work with property owners on town land or adjacent town land to indemnify. A good example of that is at Waterstone at Wellesley along that path. We have a conservation easement along that, which also then indemnifies the property owner so that the public can enjoy that path.

So is the fencing a logical request to you in terms of a condition that we can recommend?

I made a note of that.

Okay. Thank you.

Anything else to include in the recommendation? Okay. Is Colette still there?

I'm here, I'm here.

Okay, so I'm just... Yes, yes. Oh, go ahead, Colette. Yeah, I couldn't see you.

Sorry, the map was up. No, but I just had a question on the motion, but let's do public comment first.

Okay.

Okay.

We have people who've requested time for public comment. Yeah, go ahead.

Yes. Elise Kismadia? Close. I apologize in advance for messing up anybody's name.

Hi, I'm Elise Chismadia. I live at 63 River Street, where I've lived for just under 20 years with my family. Before I start, I just want to say, even though I only have one kid on my street at the time that he was in school, there were three school-age children. One, two, three, or ten, they should have a safe route to school. So the traffic study that was done doesn't really represent the day to day real life situation of living at the intersection of River Street, Walnut Street and Cedar Street. So my commute takes me to the top of River and on my left I can see all the cars coming from Schofield, from Fisk, from Route 9. if I wanted to take a left, which I try to do in the afternoon sometimes.

I can't because I can't take that left because nobody will let me in because they bear rights to go towards 95 and I'm stuck. So everybody's beeping this way. Gridlock is coming up Walnut Street towards River Street. so it is already just absolute nightmare and I know everyone thinks that their neighborhood is a nightmare but tonight I'm talking about River Walnut and Cedar and this project is just going to bring more cars they can't the residents of the 49 Walnut Street won't be able to come out of their homes because no one's going to let them in right so they're when they come out they can't go left it's already gridlocked as I've said um when they go right because they're going to go right to go into town because if they go left they automatically have to take a right to go out of town so they're going to go right they're going to come down River Street

there's already traffic restrictions at the end of River Street you can't take a left between 7 and 9 in the morning and 4 and 7 at night they already do they break the rules it gets backed up so that's not enforced what I'd like to see is some traffic mitigation on River Street. And we've tried this before when Waterstone went in. We asked for the speed bumps. We were told everybody complains. They've improved since, and they're Quieter. They have it on Grove and Concord in that area in Lower Falls and Newton. They have it by Sprague. They exist. We'd like it too. also if the traffic study was done again I find it to have a lot of fault I believe the rule is six months after everyone's moved in at 80% occupancy, they redo the traffic study to see if it does match what it is that they've already come up with.

The other point I wanted to make is I am an active person out there. I come up, I go over that bridge that was discussed, I go up that very narrow hill, and as already discussed two cars can't come in and out that was already addressed but I just want to say I appreciate how you brought up behind Waterstone I walk behind there too and I'd like to see the same access and by this building where I can go from over the bridge at Cordon Lee Dam. I know my time is up, but I just wanted to just put out the access, traffic, the patterns, the safety, all of that.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Neil Glick. All right, Kerry, you're not on our list. Make it quick, please.

Thank you for allowing me to speak off the cuff. My name is Kara Reinhart Block. I'm a town meeting member in Precinct D. And this is my second time actually appearing before this select board committee on this. I was going to talk about something else, but what I wanted to do right now was if you could pull back up the slide with the two-way pathway here. I want to say I'm not here to oppose this project I'm just here to make it safer and I have spent a number of hours and I've invited all of you in an email to come down and spend it with me I'm really surprised to see that this is still a two-way street going all the way around there because When I walked the site with Sheila Page, the Transportation and Mobility Coordinator, one of the other issues, we've talked about the width of that road that leads out to Walnut Street.

But one of the issues that came up that I noticed actually when I bumped into Joe Hassel, Mr. Hassel on the site was that that corner by the old mill building which is where it says pedestrian path striping and wayfinding. The width of that road right there is actually 19 feet with a measuring tape. I brought a measuring tape and Ms. Page and I measured it together. It's 19 feet. and if you're suggesting, I wasn't here at the beginning, I don't know what width the pedestrian pathway is suggested at, but I don't know how wide the lanes are going to be, It seems like a lot to have it be bi-directional plus a pedestrian pathway, which I understand is going to be a painted pathway. and what I understand about those is that they're a little controversial because they can direct pedestrians into the pathway of cars, vehicles. So one of the things that I had discussed with Mr. Hassel and Ms.

Page was the possibility of turning the whole area into a one-way traffic ecosystem. which given that the other buildings on the property are also for sale might not be a bad thing to think about in terms of he's the first person to develop there but is there a way that the town could work with the owners, the Haynes property management to think about the parking lot sort of holistically. And then beyond that, think about the whole lower area Walnut. There are 11 driveways on both sides of Walnut Street where cars can turn left or right. There's no right turn, sorry, there's no left turn from Walnut onto Washington Street there. So you kind of have to think of the whole area as a, holistically. so my request would again be to to not approve this as is this is a really logistically complicated site and attention to detail to make this safe and successful is really critical here

So I would want to see is it possible to turn this into a one-way site that would make it a much safer, you could come in 49 Walnut, go out, I'm happy, I'll invite you again. I'll invite, meet with Mr. Hassel. Happy to help make that happen in whatever way possible, but I just don't think with the measurements of some of the widths of these roads that it's possible. The other question is the road is in some disrepair. There are giant holes along that rail and currently cars actually park along that rail when the other lots are full. So I would want to know, sorry, are we going to be repaving the whole lot, et cetera? What are the plans for that? Thank you so much for your time. I would ask you to yet again see Mr. Hassel back with more fleshed out plans.

Thank you. Mr. Glick.

Good evening. My name is Neil Glick. I live at 89 River Street. Been there for over 20 years. I'm a direct abutter to this project. My focus tonight is on two items. both are squarely within your jurisdiction under PSI. Those are public access to the river and traffic on River Street. I won't tread over the same ground that Elise just did, my neighbor Elise, in terms of some of the traffic issues but I will touch on a few other things. As others have said, we're not here to kill this project. We're here to help you make it better. And I hope that would be a mutual goal that we could work on. Before I get into anything, I do want to address the answer to Member Sullivan, Member Wood's question about the water.

I can read a plan. I can read a survey. I know Joe can too. And the answer is that yes, about 13,000 square feet of the lot is under the Charles River. So that's the answer to your question. And you should have been given that direct answer before. But now... You have written comments from an alphabet soup of the town boards. You've got the NRC. You've got the DPW. You've got the DRB. and they all say the same thing. They want public access and Joe is, I think, being a little too clever by half when he said the DRB just wanted

Mr. Glick, please make your comments objective, not addressed ad hominem on a person, please.

Sorry, what did you say?

Please make your comments objective and not critical of an individual.

I'm not being critical, and I am being objective.

I believe the comment you just made was a little bit outside the bounds. We're happy to hear what you say, so continue.

Okay. My comment was not out of bounds by any means, but I'll take that under consideration. They all say the same thing. they all say the same thing and by the way the DRB was not just dealing with aesthetic concerns okay that's an objective fact I went to that meeting I addressed the DRB and they were very strong about the need for public access on this parcel along the Charles, just like the NRC, just like the DPW. and the Charles River Watershed Association has given you written comments the same way. And to member Ulfelder's comment about other agencies that need to be involved in terms of public access,

As you know, because I've submitted it to you, the DRC or DCR is on board with public access on this. And in fact, they told me that there hasn't been a project in 25 years that they're aware of along the Charles River in Wellesley, Newton, or Watertown that hasn't insisted on and gained public access. And we have many examples in town including what's been talked about tonight at Waterstone. So this is not new, it's not some dream thing, it's reality and it will happen. and it's more than just public access along this parcel's frontage on the river because if you connect public access on this parcel's frontage, you connect to the entire trail system. The entire trail system that goes from Route 9 all the way to the Leo J. Martin golf course.

so it's an opportunity it's an opportunity the town has been studying since 1975 1975 when you first published a study on this. And it's time to seize that opportunity. And we hope you will seize that opportunity. It should not be missed. And this is squarely within your jurisdiction. it's in your purview for comments under PSI. We're talking about sidewalks. Mr. Glick, please wrap up.

Please wrap up.

Well, you gave the developer about 20 minutes, so I think I can have a little bit more.

Mr. Glick, please respect the process and wrap up your comments.

These are pedestrian links. It's in your purview under PSI. So I urge you not to let this golden opportunity slip through the tracks, slip through your fingers. River Street Traffic, Elise.

Mr. Glick, I have to ask you to wrap up, please. We're limiting public comment to three minutes and you're at five already.

I will be wrapping up, Madam Chair. I will be, okay? We talked about speed tables or speed plateaus. You've got one right behind you. If you could walk through that brick wall, there's one right here, as well as at Sprague and other places in town. that's what River Street needs if you've ever driven down River Street you know it's downhill it's steep Mr. Glick please it's It's not enforceable. The speed limit's not enforceable. The only way you can manage traffic on River Street is by traffic calming measures, which again, again, are squarely in the bylaw within your purview under PSI. So I urge you to insist on at least two speed tables or Speed Plateaus on River Street as a... Mr. Glick, please. Thank you very much.

Leanne Laylor or Lawlor? Sorry about that.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity this evening to speak. My name is Leanne Lawler. My husband and I are new residents at 66 River Street. We are direct abutters and look down onto the proposed property. In regards to the Forty Knot Walnut Street project, I ask that the board take into consideration the concerns of our existing neighbourhood. particularly those related to the safety and the already strained traffic infrastructure. Traffic on Walnut Street is already challenging as it has been mentioned with frequent backups extending down Cedar all the way to Honeywell. For current residents the existing commute is already very challenging. My primary concern this evening focuses on the practical impact of the new residents exiting the development.

When exiting, the future residents of 49 Walnut Street would likely need to turn left onto Walnut, which is already quite difficult, as it's been mentioned, during peak hours and may instead choose to turn right onto Walnut Street and right onto River Street. This would effectively turn River Street into an unintended cut-through street which is deeply concerning given that it's a steep winding road and could pose significant safety risks for anyone walking. The proposed development fails to address several immediate physical realities of the area. The existing narrow road is not wide enough for safe two-way traffic. This problem will be compounded when delivery trucks, ride shares, and other large vehicles, such as emergency vehicles, may stop, making through traffic difficult, if not impossible.

Furthermore, the property offers no sidewalks for residents, which is a severe safety oversight, especially for the elderly, cyclists, and children in that complex walking to school or trying to get to Walnut Street. The safety and well-being of our neighbours does matter. With so much development being proposed in our town, I feel it's important that we also continue to prioritize the well-being and the safety of our current residents and homeowners. I share and fully support concerns that have been raised by Neil, our town meeting member, as well as Cara Reinhart Block, other residents, town boards, and commissions, as well as the Charles River Watershed Association. please know they are not alone in their concerns. I stand with them and respectfully ask the board to take these critical issues to heart as you deliberate and move forward. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of our neighborhood's perspective. Thank you. Thank you.

Patty Quigley.

Hi, Patty Quigley, Precinct D. I want to make sure that I make it clear that I am really like this project. I'm in favor of the project. I like what Joe has done so far. I'm glad that he came back after his previous project. and I think that Lower Falls has a lot of potential for some other things like this. I do think that it's important for us to look at the safety issue that you are all looking at this evening. Traffic is a big issue trying to get housing into our town yet make it profitable for developers and safe for the people living there is a difficult task. So hats off to you guys.

I just don't want to repeat myself or what other people have said. I think there's two important pieces of the project that really do need to be looked at in more detail. One in particular is the easement that Mr. Hassel was pointing at earlier in the project where you come down off of Walnut Street into the project. I think that it's for lack of better terms, a little ridiculous to think that anybody is gonna walk around all those buildings to go then back up. If you stand at the bottom of the hill,

no matter if there's 10 children or any one of you were residents in that development if you stopped at the bottom of the hill I would tend to believe that you would walk up the hill straight ahead before you start to walk all the way around the buildings to come back to the same spot. So I think we need to do a lot more work on that one easement. Both of them, neither, none of that property past that point does he own or would he own in this particular project. So easements from that point forward is the most important part. And I think let's just work with the easement that we have. I know it's difficult. I know there's not a lot of land. We've got to figure out something there.

The other piece that I think is very important to talk about that other people have mentioned is that when you come out of that development because there's no left-hand turn at Washington Street and Walnut unless you're going on the highway or to Newton, you will turn right and as the residents of River Street have said, people will turn down there. unfortunately when you get down to the bottom of River Street there is a big huge sign that says you cannot turn left between 7 and 9 and Four and Six. So either we talk to Newton about allowing that left-hand turn or we take down the sign at the bottom of River Street and we try to filter in more people at the bottom of River Street.

The other alternative is for people to go and continue up Walnut Street past the Warren Park, which again, there are more than 10 children at Warren Park. I do think we can move forward with this project. I don't want to see a recommendation go to the planning board because I know you don't have the authority to make the decision, but it is a recommendation. I don't want to see a recommendation go forward to the planning board that does not include the importance of the pedestrian safety and the direction of the traffic. I don't know that it's up to Joe to fix the problem or Wellesley to fix the problem. That's my comment. Thank you.

Thank you. That's it. Okay. Does the board have any further comments?

Go ahead, Beth. So first, thank all of you who came. I don't know how many of you were River Street versus Mass Bay. but there were three things that I heard that I believe should be strengthened in our recommendation. The first is that we put in there the critical importance of a traffic study on this project, particularly on River Street because the traffic study results we got, as I understand it, did not encompass the neighboring streets because of the prediction that the traffic coming out was less. And so I think we have to include in there we don't know. it's a it's a theory what's going to happen with the traffic so I would like us to put in a post traffic study analysis to ensure that the neighborhood impacts are truly understood after

I mean the project's done.

Post-documency? That's a general requirement of the PSI. They have to do that six months.

It's just not in here.

That's just not in our recommendation because that's a general condition of planning board.

And would it include River Street?

They'll do an analysis of impacted intersections if the volume that is projected is greater than 10%. The provision typically is if it's greater than 10% of what the projection was. then they have to do additional calculations and or additional mitigation. Right now because it's less than the existing traffic that's there they are not triggering 50 vehicles at a unsignalized intersection or 20 new vehicles at a signalized intersection so they would not be required to do mitigation on River Street.

can we put in because this is a change in use and a change in type of occupancy on the site that we want to include in that study River Street because of the way the traffic flows. Anyone that goes down there knows the traffic flows that way.

They've studied that. No, they didn't study it. They expect a less intensive use, and it did not trigger. further study. You will have a six month study after occupancy if the projected use is 10% below actual use.

I'm just asking if the area could include River Street. That's my... I would like the area to include River Street in our write up. Is that direct enough?

So the traffic analysis wouldn't even get that far because you have to trigger per the zoning bylaw. There are requirements for roadways impacted by the development. and under the current review which was also peer reviewed by our traffic consultants and they agreed it does not trigger that because it's actually a decrease in traffic.

I understand that I'm asking for post-construction and occupancy. Can the traffic study include River Street?

it would only include River Street if it increased based upon a roadway impacted by the design. The zoning has minimum criteria that would then trigger that review.

Beth, please continue to your second point. My second point is a stronger evaluation of the traffic flow to include an assessment of one-way traffic flow on the site. And the third is... Forgive me if I didn't see it, but a strong statement about the board's interest in public access along the waterway.

We do have a recommendation in there for public access.

and the one-way issue is a little tough because you have private property. It's not municipal property. So we can ask that they consider it and that's about as strong as we can go. Okay, anything else?

So I think when we think about this, I was not in favor of considering that sidewalk to be a sidewalk and then I heard what Kara said which I believe is true that we're talking about a painted line on a road so I am still viewing this as there's no sidewalk that gets out to walnut street that is an actual sidewalk so I would support this if it says in as strong a terms possible that this project should not go forward without a sidewalk up the driveway connecting to Walnut Street. I'll leave it to you to figure out how to phrase that, but that would get my support.

just we won't have the ability to do that this is what this is what we've been offered and what we have the ability to do. There's a couple of things, a couple of reasons why we can't do it that way. What Kenny's asking, sorry for jumping in here, but just there is a, if you look at where my cursor is, there's a walkway here and it interrupts parking here and parking on this side and this entrance here a lot it's tough to tell from this and you almost don't see it even when you're there is not a place where people should be walking to keep them away from that is actually safety is our biggest concern too. This is a three-way you go in this way and this way to these parking lots, there's no real way to make that happen.

so this is what we've been given and have permission to do unfortunately we don't we won't have the other option so I just want to let you guys know that I want to work with you guys and I'm taking these comments and incorporating them as much as I can but I just want to make that point clear

So, Mr. Hassel, is it correct that that's going to be a painted line and not an actual sidewalk?

Correct.

And how wide is it going to be?

Whatever the... I think I don't know the exact dimensions, but whatever the I think it might be like 40 inches or 4 feet I have to I can get back to you on that I can get you an exact dimension I apologize I just don't know off the top of my head So Kenny that's the limit of the permission he has The way that I would ask you to think about this is when you go to the supermarket, which has a lot more traffic and a lot more people and a lot more potential for incidents, there's no sidewalk that gets you from the front door of the supermarket out to the street you walk through the drive-bys and unfortunately there are every once in a while there may be an incident but most people are aware of their surroundings and it flows and it works so I think that's the way that

that it was explained to me and by my team and the traffic engineers that we worked with but in addition to that we're trying to provide more within our limitations that we have

I'm not sure that visual was helpful, Mr. Hassel, for those of us who go to Roach Brothers at any rate. But I think the main point that we're trying to make is that we're realistic. We understand that you have limited property in your possession here that you're trying to work with through this project. But I think a lot of what we're saying is that as these properties are acquired for further residential development, that there needs to be a cooperative approach to permanently solving some of these issues. that doesn't mean that we aren't expecting you to be more thoughtful about how you might egress to Walnut Street for example we still are including that in the recommendations but

I think the present conditions from what I hear from this board's perspective don't preclude the request that you continue to work with other property owners to see if there aren't ways to solve some of these problems because it helps them as well. I mean, we don't know whether somebody's approached some of these neighboring property owners to say this is a problem that's been brought to my attention. This property's been in sort of a steady state. with the businesses that are there but it's changing. There are going to be further changes in the future and so I'd like to propose that we take a different approach to how we might solve some of the problems. that the select board in the permitting process has identified. I think that's, we need some reassurance that you're recognizing some of the issues that have been brought up by the residents who are here and by us.

of course and if that wasn't clear let me make it abundantly clear of course I'm open to all that and gathering feedback from not only your board but all the rest of them and incorporating as much of it in as I can

Okay, so Megan, let's strengthen the letter, the recommendation. reflecting everything we've heard tonight and the recommendation that Mr. Hessel continue to work as the property changes hands to improve pedestrian safety in and out of the site. Okay, are we ready for motion?

So let me give it a try, Marjorie. So I'm going to move 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 authorising 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.

Perfect. Thank you. Collette? Aye. Kenny?

No. I would like to see it before we approve it.

What's our timeframe, Megan?

Well, we're past the 65 days. The public hearing's open. I would say you'd vote it, but it's up to you.

Okay.

Beth? I think we've suggested meaningful changes. I would like to see, it's only three days till Tuesday when we meet again. So your vote is? Oh, my vote is, I prefer to vote on Tuesday, no.

Tom? Aye. I'm going to vote aye. I think we have made our recommendations. The executive director and I will capture them in as strong terms as possible. reflecting all the input we've had. We have notes, we have transcripts, we have videos. We will put everything in there. and send the recommendation along. Again, we don't have the power to deny this permit. All we can do is make the recommendations that the neighbors have suggested, we have suggested and that we believe will improve the project. So we are going to do that and the board will certainly get a copy of it. Thank you everybody for being here. We appreciate that.

Thank you guys.

All right, we're running a little bit behind, but we're going to move on to our discussion of legal and procedural matters regarding the DCAM disposition of 40 Oakland Street. I'm going to provide a brief update Town Council is here to respond to questions from the board the board will make comments ask questions and discuss and then we'll take public input about which I'll say a little bit more in a little while For those of you who are new to this conversation, the Commonwealth has long been working to increase housing stock in Massachusetts. Several pieces of legislation mandates have been passed as vehicles to assist with housing production. 40B, accessory dwelling units, and more recently MBTA communities. Last year, the state passed the Affordable Homes Act, committing $5 billion over five years through nearly 50 different policy initiatives.

Within the Affordable Homes Act, Section 122 established a streamlined process for the disposition of state land deemed surplus, administered by the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, DCAM. DECAM is authorized with the Secretary of Administration and Finance and the Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to determine whether property belonging to the Commonwealth should be disposed of for housing purposes. The 45 acres under the control of MassBay is one of those parcels. The trustees of MassBay determined and voted that the land was surplus to the college's needs and DKAM is charged with its disposition. This is not an action initiated by this board or the town. Again, this action is not initiated by the town or this board. It is a mandate from the Commonwealth.

Wellesley has created and fulfilled its housing production plan, passed inclusionary zoning, passed the affordable housing trust, but this is a new law and under that law DCAM intends and has the right to sell the entire 45 acre parcel. This week the Select Board wrote to the Commonwealth Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to request an environmental impact review. And we will let you know when we hear a response from the Secretary. Selec board leadership had a conversation with Corey, Megan, and DCAM project managers last week. DCAM has indicated that while there is a mandate for them to move forward to create housing, They will not do so in a way that fails to allow Wellesley to incorporate our input into the process. Thus, they will wait to release the RFP.

so we can conduct our town-wide visioning session and take our results into consideration. We've been told they're expecting input from the visioning session in the first quarter of 2026 and to incorporate that input into an RFP no later than February or March. DCAM managers will discuss further with the housing and livable communities to make sure We are formulating our vision session in a way that will yield information that is acceptable to them. EOHLC consults with DCAM on all affordable homes projects. and has a seat on the RFP team, but ultimately it will be the DCAM Commissioner's decision. A consultant continues to work on the parking study. Note there is no traffic study currently underway. It's the parking study.

and results are now more likely due in mid-November rather than the first week of November. DCAM will get an estimated updated schedule as far as they know now to Megan and Eric Arbeni, our planning director, hopefully by the end of October. DCAM has heard that protection of the forest is of paramount importance. and they will work with EOHLC on whether there could or will be a permanent restriction on a majority of the site but there still must be 180 units of housing permitted by the town. I've asked town council to join us for this meeting because certain questions have been asked. Many people are discussing the issues. Incorrect information has been shared in public and is being verified repeated without verification.

There's a lot of speculation and we needed a forum in which town council could definitively respond to specific questions. I'd like to welcome Eric Russell and Chris Heap from Town Council's office. Mr. Russell is going to start with his responses, Town Council's responses, to the questions we sent to them last week.

Marjorie, may I just ask, did we discover with those speakers who aren't out in the hallway? Couldn't find them.

they they are the doors are opened I couldn't figure out speakers yeah the doors are open okay all we can do we'll deal with that

Thank you. Yes, as Marjorie said, I received a list of questions that I've been asked to address here in the open session tonight. There are some other questions we're deferring for later. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? Is that better? No? Okay. All right. There we go. All right, so of the questions we received for open session tonight, first one is, what if the state sold the land to the town or to investors? Could the purchasers do whatever they wanted with the land? So if the Affordable Housing Act process is utilized, the land must be used for housing purposes. Still can't hear me. Sorry about that. I'll repeat that.

The first question was, what if the state sold the land to the town or to investors? Could purchasers do whatever they wanted with the land? If the Affordable Housing Act process is utilized, the land must be used for housing purposes. What does the 30 day notice actually mean? This refers to 30 days notice that has to be provided to the town after it has been determined that the land is going to be treated as surplus property. The statute gives the municipality 30 days to respond to a notice that land is proposed to be declared a surplus and sold for housing purposes. It doesn't specify what has to be done in those 30 days or what response is expected from the town. There is some initial guidance from EOHLC that refers to this as a public comment period. And it also says that during this period, DCAM is supposed to consider all comments received in good faith.

So this just seems to be time for the town to weigh in on the RFP, the contents of it, any restrictions, reuse restrictions that are going to be imposed by DCAM, details of that nature.

Could you just clarify for the community that we have not received 30-day notice?

That's, yeah. To my knowledge, the town has not received this 30-days notice yet. The next two questions are closely related. Can the land be considered Article 97 land because it abuts Article 97 land? And can the town have it declared as Article 97 land? It wouldn't be considered Article 97 land merely because it abuts 97 land. It is my understanding that the town has asked for or will ask for a review from EOEEA as to whether this might be Article 97 land.

Everybody may not know the acronym.

Secretary, the letter that I said we already sent for the environmental review.

Has Section 122 of the Affordable Homes Act been tested in court? No, this is very new. There has been no litigation related to this section yet. 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? The Affordable Homes Act does not make any sort of distinction on those grounds. Is there any protection from development on wetlands even in a buffer? DCAM has taken the position that the Wetlands Protection Act does not apply under this section in other communities. Could a town acquire land designated as surplus from the Commonwealth by eminent domain? No, the town cannot take state-owned land by eminent domain. What would be the best way for the town to communicate with MassDOT about traffic mitigation issues? The town DPW has contacts with MassDOT and would be a good channel for communication. I think we've also suggested reaching out

to representatives as well to begin discussions to open those channels with MassDOT and begin those discussions as soon as possible. If I could just jump in, I'm sorry.

MassDOT has jurisdiction over Route 9. So we've been talking about an alternate access egress onto Route 9. We can't decide that. We have to work with Mass Department of Transportation. And we will start the process of getting in touch with them. And we're working with them on a couple of other projects now. So we will be in touch with them and start that conversation.

Does the statute prohibit the town from asking DCAM to pay for funding either partially or fully municipal planning exercises to participate in negotiations? The statute does not prohibit that. What is the mechanism for establishing a committee of subject matter specialists that are not elected to evaluate key negotiating and litigating strategies? A board can appoint a subcommittee. If one is appointed, it would be subject to open meeting law, public record law and other laws. applicable to public bodies. That said, individuals are free to meet to discuss these matters, to offer their input to boards, to collaborate with each other. it is the designation, the vote to create a subcommittee that invokes those other laws and creates it as a public body.

Can I ask a question on that? Yeah. So if you create a subcommittee, it's subject to open meeting laws, but is it also allowed to go into executive session to discuss negotiating strategy?

it's bound by the same rules that so it's essentially the same as the exact same rules yes If the project requires infrastructure upgrades, is the state or developer required to pay the municipality for that work? So the statute is silent on this. It seems likely that the RFP is going to control, and we would normally expect the state to put this on the developer.

and others.

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? there's certainly no prohibition against DCAM negotiating with MassDOT in advance. Is release of the RFP dependent on the outcome of the parking study and documenting that MassBay can park cars on the campus? No. up to what point can MassBay recall the land as non surplus and what is the process for that? Within 60 days after the MassBay president makes a determination that the property is surplus, the MassBay Board of Trustees can disapprove that determination. Apart from that, there's no other specific process in the statute for recalling that determination.

That said, if MassBay were to make a determination that it did in fact have use for this property, DeCamp might be convinced to walk away from it in that situation. If the town is allowed to reasonably control building massing, scale, and setbacks, does that effectively allow us to control unit size? That would allow sort of indirect control over unit size. If you can control the height of a building, the setbacks of it, and you know what area it's going to be within. you can indirectly impact unit size. can the town restrict or mandate minimum parking requirements? No. Section 122 of the Affordable Homes Act specifies what areas the town can regulate.

It uses language that's very, that's pretty much parallel to what's known as the Dover Amendment, a portion of Section 3 of Chapter 40A, the Zoning Act. So we expect it to be interpreted very nearly the same except within that list of what the town can regulate. Parking is included in the Dover amendment. It is not included in this. It was specifically omitted from this. Is age restricted housing allowable within or under the Affordable Homes Act? Yes, that would be allowed. Is a continuing care facility allowable? We don't think so. We don't think that is the sort of single-family housing or multifamily housing that is envisioned for being created under the Act. Is the project required to meet our stretch energy code guidelines or is that a negotiation point? We think that the project would be required to meet the Stretch Energy Code guidelines.

That said, DCAM, like I said earlier, has taken the position that the Wetlands Protection Act and certain other statutes don't apply to it under this act. So we think it would apply. We are not positive what DKAM's position is going to be at this point.

Thank you very much. Okay, are there any board questions or comments in addition before we continue? Okay. So, Mr. Heap, do you want to address the board now or later?

No, I know we're going to be having a further discussion. Yes, an executive session. Okay. I just didn't want to cut you off.

All right. Thank you. Yes.

Just so people in the audience know who might not be familiar with the whole process of We're not asking questions up here necessarily because a lot of these may be geared towards litigation. And so that shouldn't be done in public. And that's why we're not asking a lot of the questions that you might think we should be asking right now.

So MassBay and DCAM have held two public meetings since our initial meeting. We've had two meetings, and between 100 and 140 people attended each meeting. All the board members have attended one or both meetings and heard comments made by the residents. We have extensive notes and have made notes and received emails about resident concerns. The Select Board is holding a town-wide visioning session early in December, the date and location to be announced soon, and it will be shared through all of the town's communication channels. We invite every resident to join us with the visioning that will shape what we say we would like to see as a town when we send that to DCAM. So that's critical. and we will share it through all the communication channels. We have received dozens of emails and attended several meetings

and we have heard concerns and comments about the environment, natural habitat, traffic, density of potential development, sustainable construction, climate goals and resilience, preserving the forest, opportunities for passive recreation, schools, location of parking, , Interplay between the governor's executive office order to protect biodiversity and the mandate to create housing, as well as the new mass trails grants program for trails improvements in 50 municipalities in the Commonwealth. the condition of Oakland Street, traffic and storm water runoff, concerns in neighborhoods, housing for vulnerable communities, the fast pace of the project presented to the town,

the distinguishing feature of the Wellesley DCAM project as you've heard being forest, why MassBay couldn't seek funding elsewhere for the construction from other sources and more. There are 10 people who have requested to speak tonight. I note seven of you have spoken at either or both of our meetings and either or both of MassBay meetings. So we're going to ask you not to repeat what other people have said. We'd like to keep the meeting streamlined. And if we hear repeated themes, I will ask for a show of hands. of how many people agree with that, but we can't hear those again and again and again. We've heard them. We've taken note of them. They will all be part of the town's recommendations. to DCAM and will be part of the visioning session. So let's take public comment. Oh, go ahead, Tom.

I wanted to ask just again, thank you for making an effort with the microphone, but are we able to post the questions and answers on the town website so that people can have access to those. Sure. I think that would, I've seen a lot of nodding heads. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, we have a page for the project already.

We have a dedicated page, so you can send them to me.

Marjorie, where we have so many people that want to speak, should we ask town council to move over here so they can help us answer things?

Thank you. Okay, Corey.

Yes, we're going to start in the order in which I received a request to speak. So John Richardson. No. Green one? Either one. They both work.

Okay. That's not green. Two and a half minutes, by the way. Done it twice. I heard your caution on not repeating something, but I don't know how to avoid every one of those pitfalls there, but I'll do my best. My name is John Richardson. I live at 152 Oakland Street. I've lived in Wellesley for 27 years. I support expanded housing, but I believe there are better spaces in town that can add housing without the destructive elements of this project. 6 weeks ago DCAM arrived here and with two events presented their fast track plan to install housing projects where they find surplus land across the state knowing they can also overrule or sidestep town oversight They tagged conservation land and a trail system as surplus land in this case.

at both meetings they bragged about how fast they made deals and they also admitted they had done almost no research on this particular site they were specific to this site they also carefully confessed that impacts on school traffic utilities are the town or as you said possibly the developers responsibility and not theirs. The impact of this project as I see it is threefold. One, it's completely inappropriate for the neighborhood and that's regardless of the fact that I live on that street. Two, traffic gridlock for neighbors and commuters on Route 9. Everyone said it, but it bears repeating. And the loss of a really large piece of forest and conservation land, as we all have heard. DeCamp can beneficially repurpose empty prisons in Concord, state hospitals in Mattapan and other suitable spots. into positive housing stock, but this proposal seems to be a rush-to-close deal to benefit two state entities at the expense of this neighborhood.

It could also set a precedent that forested land has zero value to the state until bulldozers show up. This seems rather hypocritical given the state's other mandates for maintaining biodiversity and green space. So one scenario I thought that could happen is the town gets stuck with a cruise ship sized housing development on the parking lot. We lose all or part of the forest and its much used trail system if negotiations don't go well at all. and third, MassBay's project fails. At both of the meetings at MassBay, the president confirmed the school has not secured any state funding and also that their project cost estimate is three to four years out of date. So I'm asking this board, as you're often tasked with reviewing large scope projects, to reject this build first, we'll sort out the details later plan. it doesn't seem fair for the state to treat this land like a monopoly board game and then tell us to sort of deal with it for the greater good of housing access.

I understand this is a David and Goliath situation here, but just because the state's name is on that piece of paper doesn't mean we can't push back to some extent and say this project does not fit this location.

Hall, White.

I've spoken before and I won't repeat what I said before but I do want to pick up on what John just said because I want to offer what I think is a suggestion that may not have been made before and that is there is a sense in the community and perhaps on this board as well that the state is not it's not playing nice is the way that I would put it. That they have made very clear that they are beyond oversight by the town and we all sense that and we all feel that. I'm not sure that that's true and the reason why I say that is that there are there are two projects here. One is a housing project and the other is a campus project. The college is interested in selling this land and apparently it was the college's idea to do this so that it will obtain funds to

to pursue the campus project, the cyber security building. that project whatever the state may say about its housing project that project is certainly subject to town oversight and so the college is essentially putting itself in a position where it is selling a parcel of its land that will, without town oversight, create enormous problems for the town in terms of traffic and environmental impact and all of those other things. And then intends to come to the town and say, we now want you to approve what we want to do on our land with the campus project. And as to that issue, it seems to me that the larger it makes the housing project, the more impact...

that it creates from that project by selling that land, frankly, the less likelihood it has of being able to persuade this board that whatever it plans to do with the campus should proceed because it will already have dramatically increased all of the impacts that there are in that neighborhood and it will be simply adding to something that it has already taken to a point that is beyond the possibility of further development. So I'm wondering, and I suggest, that this board does in fact have the power to say to the college... and I realize that the college is one part of the state, but they are really separate entities in terms of the interests that they have. but to say to the college, you need to be aware of the fact that if this proceeds without our input or approval, that the likelihood that you will get our approval for your project

is going to be dramatically minimized. And that therefore, there needs to be a much more collaborative approach that involves the town and involves this board in coming up with a way in which the housing project can proceed that will allow the campus project to proceed and that that is going to require your input and a significantly reduced plan for whatever the housing is that's going to be put on Oakland Street. That's my suggestion and my observation.

One thing, I think town councilor should clarify for this so there's no misinformation how the Dover amendment works with the campus.

Sure. So not only is the proposed housing development protected by the or allowed by the AHA, the new statute. Sorry. but in addition to the protections for the proposed housing development any new proposed construction on the campus itself would be protected partially protected by the Dover amendment which prevents the town from prohibiting or unreasonably regulating educational uses as well. So there's a couple layers here and a layer would apply to both the proposed housing and the expansion of the campus.

Well, those are different statutes, and I'm familiar with the Dover Amendment, and I don't think that the Dover Amendment provides that complete freedom for the college from oversight from the town.

Chris can I just add one point so they are exempt from our building department and from our zoning the state does not go through a town regulatory process ever so we do not review them

So you're saying there's nothing that this board can do with respect to whatever plans the college has?

Correct. For other colleges, Wellesley College of Babson, we've reviewed those plans. For the state, we do not.

Leanne Liebman on Zoom.

please unmute yourself thanks good evening my name is Leanne Leibman I reside at 31 Hampshire Road and I'm a town meeting member let me start by thanking you all for your service to this town and for the opportunity to speak this evening At last week's select board meeting, our state representatives Alice Peitsch and state senator Cynthia Cream discussed the commonwealth's perspective on the MassBay project. Representative Paish made it very clear that the state welcomes the information our town develops through its own process and emphasized that it's entirely appropriate for that process to take several months. She specifically said the Commonwealth understands that the town needs time to build broad consensus and to produce an outcome that genuinely reflects our priorities. Despite that, later in the same meeting, the select board voted three to two to hire consultants for up to $75,000. One of the stated reasons was the need for an independent third party.

However, it's difficult to call this independent when the person being hired previously worked for the town and the planning department and when the hiring is being done outside of any competitive bidding process. The board had options for how to fund this consultant. One option was to seek an appropriation from Free Cash at the special town meeting on November 3rd, less than a month away, which would have allowed town meeting members to participate in the decision. Another option was to use the Federal Royalty Fund, which requires no town meeting input. By a 3-2 vote, the Board chose to go it alone. As a town media member myself, I find this decision troubling because just minutes earlier, our state legislators had told us that the Commonwealth encourages a thoughtful process that takes time to gather input from across the community. Yet the board justified bypassing town meeting by saying there isn't time to wait.

That's a contradiction and it undermines both the spirit of open government and the very advice we received from our own representatives. Town Meeting is a very important voice of our community. That voice should be heard. I urge the Select Board to reconsider their approach and ensure the process reflects the values of inclusivity and public trust. Thank you for your time.

Sorry for mispronouncing your last name. Susan Freed, also on Zoom.

Yeah, hi. Thanks for taking this. I'll keep this somewhat quick because my my comments I'm sure will be considered by some as somewhat frivolous but I think that this I just don't want to lose this opportunity especially looking at projects that are well underway and all the limitations just having sat through that last conversation I think that the town should really make sure that whatever Project happens on this property that there is a link and biking and walking paths can come from Oakland almost to Washington Street. The map, if you look at the map, that piece of property blocks off so many passages and it would I'm bringing it up just because I think it's important to just not forget about it and I think that with all the conflicting opinions with all the

and so on. Centennial Reservation, which people love. I know this is not part of it, but people use multiple access points through that property to get to Centennial so when whatever the development is and I'm sure something will be developed whether it's now whether it's a year from now or 10 years from now I really I strongly advise that that become a priority that's planned ahead. Having walked around the town and run around the town a lot, running to Cape Broughton many times. you take your life into your hands and you get to the Brook Path and it's lovely and people love the Brook Path and I think it would be a great opportunity to just build on that and connect neighborhoods

the fact that the state has that they've added all that funding to trails you know maybe we could anyway that that's that's my plug for making sure this does not get forgotten thank you thank you.

Jen Beechel, I'm sorry if I mispronounced that. I was due for one.

Hi, I'm Jen Beechel and I live at 190 Oakland Street. I did speak at the MassBay meeting, so I'll keep this short. I mostly just wanted to first of all thank the select board for listening to all of us and at least from my email that I wrote in all of my concerns have been addressed so I raising something that I noticed in the last meeting that you all had and that was that the select board member Beth Woods had mentioned hearing from the hearing on October 7th, where she articulated that this project evokes very different concerns from different neighborhoods that abut Centennial and the MassBay properties. It also calls into question, this is me now adding on to what Beth said, our commitment and the state's recognition of

the sacrifice that the Sisters of Charity have made and the fact that they are also a vulnerable elderly population who came to this town asking for help with their own financial situation and we denied it. and they have been left out of this process entirely. So they deeded their land to the state and have recognized that the forest is important to them as well. and I think it's important that we remind them of that history. So I'm asking the select board to make sure that they're fully educated on that history. and then I'll just add that there are indeed major trade-offs to this project and they will reflect our values as a community in perpetuity to be inherited by generations after us. These decisions are precedent setting for our town

they are decisions that increase housing at the expense of overbuilding, creating density with limited infrastructure in this town are really being felt and the state needs to understand that this is a very calculated decision, should be a very calculated decision to consider the risk benefits. So I'd like to request that as part of this evaluation, that the select board has requested of the state with analysis from the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Organization. that you all also participate in a collaboration of a financial analysis to determine the cost benefit of tax income to our town.

versus the cost to accommodate the infrastructure changes due to density, school expansion, and impact on learning goals, increased classroom sizes, environmental impact, et cetera. What is the downstream cost of this kind of density to the taxpayers of our town? And I'm not just talking in a year. I'm talking in five years. Thank you.

Judith Barr. Yes, thank you. And I practiced that one.

Good evening and thank you for this opportunity. I'm Judy Barr. I've lived in this town for 52 years. I'm a town meeting member from Precinct C. I'm also vice president of the Wellesley Conservation Land Trust. Last year the Land Trust sponsored a panel discussion about housing and conservation. It doesn't have to be either or. Now we have our own case study right before us. Right here in Wellesley, 40 Oakland, 45 acres. And on September 19th, the state declared it underutilized and surplus. and it became fast track for housing development. This doesn't have to be housing only. It can be both.

Housing, and Conservation, since from the eye of conservation, the land is neither underutilized nor is it surplus from conservation point of view. two state initiatives should come into play when considering the use of this 45-acre parcel. First, Governor Healey's Affordable Home Act that we all know about, Wellesley has added and will continue to add more multifamily housing. The Grady parking lot would be a site for appropriate additional housing, which is not 180. but maybe we could trade off or make them realize how many new houses have come on and are coming on to say we're not just sitting here. You'll get your 180. Second, the state's 2025, the second state initiative.

The biodiversity conservation goal must be considered and applied to that 40-acre, heavily forested acre area of the property. The first goal of the biodiversity plan is protect land. Preserving Land, 30% of Massachusetts by 2030. That's not just a state need, it's a national need, and it's an international policy. Protecting land also helps with climate change. The state's 2025 climate forestry plan states, it is crucial to ensure that Massachusetts forests are conserved and managed to optimize carbon capture and mitigate climate harms. Forest as climate solutions

will accelerate progress toward our own land conservation goals of protecting 30% of the Commonwealth land by 2030. we must double that land conservation. That's a state statement. The report continues and this is paramount as they use the word. It is paramount for Massachusetts to keep forests as forests by supporting efforts to reduce land conversion and increasing permanent land conservation. Two last paragraphs. So if we need to double the pace of land protection, and given that forests are crucial for both biodiversity and climate change, to preserve these forests, why destroy 40 acres of forested lands?

That action would reduce, obviously, not increase protected forest land and Damage Carbon Storage Efforts. Housing or land protection is the question. The answer is both. to meet the state's own dual objectives of housing and land conservation. The Land Trust supports dual goals, build appropriate additional housing on the five acre degraded and surplus parking lot and permanently conserve the 40 acres of forested land adjacent to Centennial Park for climate and diversity needs with a permanent in perpetuity conservation restriction. Thank you.

Catherine Stanley on Zoom.

Hi, thank you. I made these remarks at the recent DCAM MassBay meeting, but that meeting was not recorded or broadcast, and I'd like to share my remarks with the whole community. I'm a Wellesley resident. Massachusetts is facing a severe housing and workforce crisis for people with complex disabilities. Once a disabled young adult turns 22, school ends. and they lose essential services, vocational and educational opportunities and social connections. For those with complex disabilities, especially wheelchair users and non-verbal individuals, there are virtually no safe housing options or meaningful work options. 242,805 disabled residents live in Massachusetts and struggle to live independently. 60% live at home, often with aging family caregivers, often in isolation.

Current care models like group homes and adult foster care are inadequate and unsafe for individuals with complex care needs. Our solution is an integrated work-life community, a small care farm model with three family style homes on four acres, including a shared community center, a greenhouse and gardens for work and farming, gardening and the arts right in the neighborhood we're trying to build. I'm a volunteer president of a local nonprofit in Wellesley called High Spirit East. And my daughter is a wheelchair user and has complex disabilities. Only one state sanctioned pilot integrated work life community currently exists in Massachusetts. It offers proof of concept. We're building another one locally. which will be the first accessible care farm in the state and possibly the United States.

These communities address both the housing crisis for the disabled and the staffing crisis by offering living care teams across the homes creating a sustainable, safe, and vibrant environment as well as not increasing traffic. Staff retention is high, ensuring continuity of care. These communities cost less than group homes, have better outcomes, and offer financial transparency missing for foster care. There is smarter use of taxpayer dollars and bring peace of mind to the families. Why Wellesley? There are local families here with disabled adult children living at home who will soon face emergency placements as parents age out. The state and MassBay can lead by allocating surplus land to this green, inclusive, and beautiful solution to support our most vulnerable residents. The State Senate and Health and Human Services support this model and are exploring expanding pilots. Our project, High Spirit East, is a top candidate.

please consider this model when allocating surplus public land. The disabled are the most underserved citizens in the Commonwealth. The state and MassBay have a chance to be a leader in changing that and so does Wellesley. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Stanley.

Leslie Hanrahan.

Thank you very much. I sent in some slides. Could you pull those up for me, please? I don't know if I can tell if they're up, so let me know. Oh, great. Thank you. There's been a lot of discussion about saving the forest and building on the five acre parking lot. Tonight, using DCAM's examples from their questionnaire, I'd like to explore whether saving 40 acres is possible and under what circumstances. Next slide, please. This is an actual development in Medway called Hathon. DCAM is using this in their questionnaire as an example of a dense development. But it is the MassBay project. 190 units, a five-story building situated on a 12-acre lot with 300 parking spaces and...

you know modest amenities a pool playground etc in order to build this on it this is on 12 acres we would have to take seven acres of the forest and it would have to be um combined with the five acre parking lot. So for 12 acres. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Thank you. Could this be built on five acres? Probably yes. Here's a rendering of Hathon on five acres. It is now 10 stories. Oh, no, back, back, please. It is now 10 stories tall, not five stories tall. It has to be shrunk to fit the lot size from 12 acres to five acres, so by more than half. you will cut the building footprint in half to fit it on a lot half the size.

This also cuts the number of units from 190 to 95. So then you would have to add five more stories, which gives you the 10 stories. and your 190 units on five acres. To accomplish this, you double the building height from five to 10. In addition, 300 parking spaces are needed the parking lot which we know exists today it's five acres and it currently holds 650 cars so we need 2.5 acres for parking to accommodate 300 parking spaces this leaves even less land 2.5 acres for the building so that we would be looking at maybe even a 15-story building if we don't take any forest next slide please So at the other end of the spectrum is the less dense option offered by DCAM. And they actually use fieldstone in two of the pictures here as their examples.

Fieldstone is four units per acre. So this would take the whole forest. 180 units divided by four units per acre is the whole 45 acres or the whole 40 acre forest. Next slide, please. To save the forest as well as our sense of place, we must remove the 40-acre forest from the calculation. The forest isn't surplus, the forest isn't vacant, and the forest isn't disposable. Single family homes take all the forest. Medium density homes like Terraza or Phillips Park, which DCAM has used in their questionnaire as well, will take a significant chunk of the forest. The most dense housing is Hathon, and that will take the smallest amount of forest, but it will still take up to a quarter of the forest.

Hathon on a small lot, the five acre lot, taking none of the forest will likely result in a skyscraper that will look that will look like it's sitting on a postage stamp. Let's start with a vision of 20 units of a wonderful project on a five acre parking lot and see where we can take that in the town of Wellesley. and I wanted to comment on you know the legal comments tonight and that is that we can regulate the height of this but what good is regulating the height of it if we just eat up more and more of the forest so you know If we want to keep the forest, we're going to have a 10-story or more building that fills up that parking lot. Thank you very much for your time.

Raina McManus.

Earlier than I thought. Hi, everybody. Thank you for having me. I'm Raina McManus, and I'm glad that I'm not in your spot, but that's okay. I'd like to address whether this forest is parkland and should be protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution which reads in part the people shall have the right to clean air and water Freedom from Excessive and Unnecessary Noise, and the Natural, Scenic, Historic, and Aesthetic Qualities of Their Environment. Land or Easements, subject to Article 97, cannot be used for other purposes or disposed of without a two-thirds vote of the state legislature, creating a high bar for altering protected open space. I know you're familiar with the City of Westfield case, but for others, and I am by no means an attorney, it dealt with a public playground that had been transferred to the school board to build a new school. 25 residents not wanting to lose their playground sued. They lost in the first round but won on appeal.

It's been said that this case is different because the park was city owned versus state land and I know that a federal grant was involved. but, and here I'm quoting from the decision, municipal parkland may be protected by Article 97 without any such recorded restriction provided the land has been dedicated as a public park. I can't read the entire paragraph because of time limits, and I've tried not to cherry pick, but if I'm reading it correctly, dedication can occur in many ways, including where the public accepts such use by actually using the land as a public park. More quotes from the decision include, nothing in the language or purpose of Article 97 suggests that its application should turn on whether the underlying deed provides record notice that the land has been committed to an Article 97 use. The recording of a deed or a conservation restriction is one way of manifesting intent but is not the only way.

And I'm still quoting here. For instance, it was plain to this court that the Boston Common and Public Garden had been dedicated as public park without there being any deed or conservation restriction declaring the land to be a public park. also have noted in the decision, the spirit of Article 97 is derived from the related doctrine of prior public use. So my question for you is, has town council done a detailed review of the NRC Trails Committee and DPW history and relationship with the MassBay Forest and MassBay representatives? For decades, Wellesley has been stewarding the land, providing monitoring and maintenance. I don't have time to list it all here, but all with acceptance by Mass. It has always been a heavily used outdoor public recreation asset. It is also contiguous to 40 acres of Article 97 land Centennial Reservation.

So can the town appeal to the EEA or other state agency arguing that Mass Bay Forest is indeed under Article 97? It may be a first, but maybe we can try. if the town is not willing I was wondering if we could understand why not so thank you very much

Sure go ahead.

Thanks so much. Appreciate all you're doing. I certainly don't envy anyone on the select board or the town for this. This is quite a challenge. just focused on process. I think I'm a little bit very supportive of the visioning study. I think it makes sense in order to help us identify our goals. I just want to be thoughtful about how we're using the visioning study as we're looking at it as a tool as part of our negotiation. I think that the visioning study helps us identify second priority goals, but I think that what I've heard from the majority of my My fellow Wellesley citizens is that our priority is to stop this project or to at least severely limit this project. I understand that something is likely to happen over there, but 180 units as

Leslie's slides I think very very poignantly demonstrated is a lot and so I want to make sure that we are not looking at the visioning study as seeing what's here, but then passing that along to the state as here you've taken our concerns about environmentalism and the way this is going to look and feel into consideration. I think we've got other things that we want to accomplish. that are bigger priorities for the town. I think the state has moved in a way where they're holding all of the cards. They've put you in a difficult position, dribbling out information very slowly. and based on what I've read in the statute in the absence of regulations, they control the RFP. There's no reason they can't put some stakes in the ground and put them firmly. I think they can give you a concrete timeline

they can cap the number of units to 180 they can give us that commitment there's no reason they can't at this stage I think in my experience the way in order to move someone off of their position which has been dribbling information out is through public pressure. I'm glad everybody is here tonight. Personal influence. Who do we know? What are our relationships? What can we do with those? Legal challenges. I'm glad town council is here. And then economic which we probably can't buy this ourselves. I think we should look to some of those tools in order to try to push the state to behave in a way that we can engage with meaningfully before we run to compromise and to cooperation which is what we would have to do in the absence of leverage so I just want to make sure I want to make sure that we're pushing while we're simultaneously identifying goals and running our contingency plans so thank you again very much appreciative of of the hard work that goes into this thank you

Is there anyone else here who would like to speak?

Yeah, and pull it close to you. Yes, thanks. Thank you for allowing the citizens speak. My name is Sue McKay, and I reside at 186 Oakland Street. My husband and I have resided on Oakland Street for over 25 years, and like fellow residents of the Wellesley community, we have enjoyed walking the town forest as well as Centennial Park on Oakland Street. losing these unique biodiverse lands to a developer for housing in an already dense tight-knit neighborhood would be tragic. We appreciate MassBay's desire to create a campus suitable for its students, but there's gotta be another way to raise monies other than selling the town forest. As it's been said, before trading housing for the town forest seems pretty extreme. You'd be raising precious, biodiverse land for buildings that don't exist.

have you considered alternatives which of course where you council had had answered considered selling the town to the land to the town of Wellesley or to the Wellesley Conservation Land Trust but There's got to be other considerations or making sure we look at all our options. But as we know, the town of Wellesley has met the state's criteria for affordable housing. some more affordable housing at this particular location seems unjustified. And finally, as an Oakland Street resident, it would be unwise and unsafe to expect the street and the dense neighborhood to handle more cars and traffic. thanks very much anybody else

Greenlighted. Hi, I'm Jennifer Seidman. I live at 225 Oakland Street. So I live on the stretch of Oakland Street that is between Jackson and Jackson. and I'm not gonna belabor the point or add to this, but I would like to see, especially given the presentation about the property on Walnut Street, a safety study done. by this town prior to engaging in a proposal from a builder. Because it's too late now for that neighborhood. Those children are going to walk. One child or two or ten, it doesn't really matter. And I would like to invite each of you all of you and anyone from the state and you to come and stand at 247 Oakland Street between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and then I'd like you to step one foot out from that place at the edge of the road because that's where the kids have to walk. either to get to their elementary school or to take the school bus to the high school or middle school.

And it is very dangerous. I walk that stretch every single day and I'm an adult. and an eight-year-old should be allowed to walk to school. That's why we have neighborhood schools. So I would like to really press for this board and this town to do that safety study before you engage in any kind of visioning. because you need to know what it's like to walk that path thank you anybody else

Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the board for questions and comments from board members.

What is our timing for seeing the scope of services that we were soliciting?

So we got a preliminary draft, but on the back end, they were seeking nine to 10 weeks. So I went back to them to say, can you tighten that up? and to understand if there's cost implications to that so that we could presumably have a finalized report by end of January.

Is the proposal something the board is seeing before we approve and proceed it?

Yes, I'm hoping to have that for the meeting on the 21st.

are we open to seeking other solicitations and bids to understand given that The timing is not as rushed as I think we discussed last week. Reaching out to get other ideas about how to understand on negotiation strategies and balancing the needs of the community and the pressure from the state in terms of their mandates.

Well, that's one reason we have town council here tonight, and we have an ongoing relationship daily with town council, and I imagine we will have access to town council to discuss those, but that will be in an executive session.

Is openness to soliciting bids a question for town council or a question for our board?

Let's first review the scope of study that we have. We can't take chances with the time. We don't know when DCAM is going to move forward. And given that one consultant has asked us for nine or ten weeks after the visioning to prepare a report, we really need to get started soon. So let's review the first scope of services and see where we are. Other questions, comments?

One thing on that. So I thought I heard that they said you have until the end of the first quarter.

If we do the visioning study the first week in December and the consultant needs six to eight weeks to prepare the report, that's the first quarter.

That's in the first quarter. It's not the end of the first quarter.

They didn't say they'd wait till April. They expected they'd be sending the RFP out February or March.

we're hoping to get a timeline right and so that was certainly we've asked for more time even pending what we get back in terms of a scope of services we'll have to get that certified but keep in mind that's one aspect because then you want to influence the RFP and so you want to give yourself six to eight weeks.

Wait We have examples with DCAM. where the municipality thought they had an agreement and DCAM changed it. And so we have to assume when DCAM gives us a range that we need to be working towards the earlier date in that range and not the later. Now, one advantage we have is two state legislators who are significantly respected and connected. So between Representative Peish and Senator Cream, they have had a meeting with the Secretary of Housing and the head of DCAM. That's an advantage that other communities have not exercised with their legislative leaders. but we cannot assume that we're playing to the end of the time periods that they give us. We have to be looking at the beginning.

I'm sorry, I literally said this the last week, and I was shot down as saying, our state representatives aren't going to be lied to by DCAN. and now the discussion is literally flipped on its head that we have to move fast because DCAM can't be trusted and while our state reps are respected, we still can't necessarily trust them, so we have to move fast. It was literally the exact opposite.

I didn't say move fast. I said we have to be prudent. We have to be looking at... at timelines that are earlier in the periods that they talked to us about and not later in the periods. And I believe that what our legislators talked about was quarters as Marjorie referred to and not specific dates like April 1st.

Can I just give a different perspective on this? I've been to both the MassBay meetings. We had DCAM in front of us here on, I think it was the 25th? 16th. the 15th, 16th, I'm sorry. I had a very strong impression that was validated by our legislators that DCAM wants to partner with us. DCAM wants to create something that is the best it can be for the municipality given the mandate that they have to put 180 units on some portion or all of that parcel. I never heard they said we'll only partner with you according to our timeline. I think it's incumbent on us to lay out what we need to know to enter negotiations in a powerful way.

What our infrastructure needs are, what our traffic situation is, what fits, what doesn't fit, what our community values and where they're willing to make tradeoffs so that we can live with whatever we end up with for a really long time. I don't think that's a, you know, we'll listen to you if you can get it done in a short amount of time.

First of all, we're not partnering with the state. We're trying to inform their RFP. Second of all, we are gonna be our best advocates. and if we don't take advantage of the time now to get everybody together and talk about this, we could risk losing the time window that we have. I don't see any reason for us to delay getting everybody together and having an opportunity to talk about this. all we know is what our legislators told them DCAM told them and what DCAM told us. That's all we know. We have no definitive timelines. We have no definitive number of units. We know nothing. What we know is what we've told you. And it is incumbent on us to try to represent the best interests of the town. That's our job, is to represent the best interests of the town and we are trying to do that.

We're in touch with our legislators and DCAM a couple times a week. We keep asking the same questions and they do not give us the answers. and what Tom was referring to was there was a project in another town where DCAM and the town had an agreement about an infrastructure project. and when it came time for the RFP, DKIM would not put it in the RFP to bind the developer. So it was a lost opportunity. We don't want that to happen to us. We have a lot of advocates here. We have a lot of interests, a lot of priorities. We've heard three or four different initiatives that the state is pursuing. We want to know how those are all going to work together and how they can best work in Wellesley. So we have your interests at heart and we're working very hard to try to represent you, but that's all we know. and we will share with you what we learn when we know more.

So the board is going ahead with the visioning. We will let you know, we will review the scope of services and we are determined to move forward and we hope you will all join us in that visioning session.

Marjorie, I just wanted to clarify, I was not implying that we should not start now listening to our community. understanding our community and creating strategic thinking. I was implying that we don't have to pack I'm sorry Beth, I don't agree with you.

We don't know what their timeline is. We don't have any definitive date and we need to start. and in the board's view, the best way to start is opening it up to everybody to have a conversation together, an interactive charrette where everybody gets to participate so we can list our priorities. List, talk about what we're willing to trade off, where the balance is. We need to have those conversations, and I don't think we can rely on April or May or later. We just can't do that. So we are going ahead with the visioning, and we hope you will all join us.

I just want to say that... I just want to say DKAM's interest in partnering with us is predicated upon their perception that we're cooperating with their ultimate goal. we're trying to find out what that ultimate goal is they have been asked that repeatedly and they don't answer and therefore it is one thing to go in with a responsible collaborative attitude while keeping our guard up and being very careful that we're taking advantage of every opportunity to move our agenda ahead in a professional responsible way.

Go ahead, Colette.

I just want to underline a couple of things. What I heard when DCAM came and spoke to us was that they were interested in our feedback. They want us to shape the project. but they're also being charged with moving, I would say with purpose on this because this is a housing emergency and we're moving with speed and we have been charged to move with speed. and so I think we have to hear both of those things equally and so I think it's our responsibility to do our homework and which I hope residents feel that we have done given the way that we presented the information at every single meeting. It's obvious that every board member is taking this seriously and doing a lot of homework on this. But I also think we cannot drag our feet on this in any way. We have to move with purpose equally to the mess of Pace that the state is moving at or we'd be left behind I certainly don't want to be a member of the board that fumbled the ball on this one we have an uh

We have to comply with what the law is asking us to do, but we also have an opportunity to preserve what residents have asked us to preserve on their behalf. and so we really have to move with purpose right alongside the state and so I think that this is a different pace than what we're used to working at but we're very well equipped to do that and we need to do and work at this pace. Thank you.

Thank you, Colette. Keep in mind, the first time DCAM met with us was a month ago. that was the first time. They had small meetings with small neighborhood groups but they never presented to the board until a month ago. So we have been peppering them with questions and requests for specific information, and they just will not give it to us. One more thing. So we are following up all of our options. We have a lot to talk about. There are a lot of different ways the town could proceed. We will be investigating each and every one of them. some can be in public, some cannot be in public but we are looking at every way to approach this project keeping the town's interests in mind anything else? Okay. All right. So thank you all for coming. Please continue to write to us.

Look out for the date announcement on the visioning and get other people involved. The more people we hear from, the better.

Okay, as soon as we can have people pack up. Hi.

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. The state has the right to do what they want to do. Okay, our next agenda item is to discuss and vote FY27 budget guidelines. We have preliminary individual guidelines, and the CFO and Executive Director are continuing to review. to review the budgets. So I'll turn it over to Megan.

Thanks, Marjorie. I'm just going to, Rachel and I had refined it a little bit. Not much change. Let me just share my screen. and Rachel has jumped on. Hi, Rachel. Good evening, everyone. How are you? I don't know how to change it so you can just see that. Okay, there we go. So this is very similar to what was submitted, what Rachel and I have done with the table that I gave to the board at the last meeting. We reviewed in detail where we think people actually will be. In particular, it's because of the steps. So that's why you might see a slight overage, over 3%.

So in those departments that did not have any individual with any step increases, we've diminished it from 3% on personal services. based on the information that was also provided at the all board we have made some minor modifications to try and address that so if we you know with the notion that 3% is sort of the overarching goal for guidelines essentially many of the departments will reach 3% or for personal service and expenses. Where we're drawing some modifications, climate action, this was similar to what we did last year as well. Because they don't have anyone on steps, you'll see a 2% there. For IT, similar to last year due to rising costs of subscriptions, we have 8%. Treasurer and collector, that is due to steps and potential overtime.

so the the part-time people you will have any work over 35 hours is straight pay any overwork any work over 40 hours this time and a half and we've put very nominal like we looked at it today like a thousand dollars you know per department which will be likely largely level funded because we're truing up 26 with our class and comp funds. So that's not a big hit, but that's what that's related to. and there's also longevity for those individuals so again we'll throw it up so you're where you're going to feel longevity is if someone's making like that next leap to that next tier. Excuse me, for audit committee, we put in an amount. So this is a, Rachel and I went through, this is an RFP year. It's a bid year for them. And looking back, right here, and looking back at that, this is new, looking back at that, it's always been about a 20% increase contract to contract

and so we built in a 20% increase to the audit committee. That is for our annual financial comprehensive report. Slightly overwhelmed Council on Aging because of the hours. Facilities Management, 5% was similar to what we did last year. I went back to Joe to see if that could be refined. He said last year was the least amount of funds he's ever returned on utilities, so we did keep it at 5%. So in past years, MLP has had flat rates for the past three or four years. They are contemplating a rate change. so that's partially factored into this as well although they didn't have an estimate as of yet they're still working their way through that. Where we say union negotiations what we will do in our

and the budget prep manual is they will provide for 0% COLA and then just escalate people up on their existing steps for that. Ultimately, it could be 3%, but we do know some of them are going to be over. Because we're in a bargaining year, you end up truing it up a little differently under a separate article any way that advisory is reviewed so we're happy to put three percent in here because most of all of them will meet three percent sort of as budget but not necessarily through negotiations. And I say that because police, not police, excuse me, fire because of the number of junior employees, they did a quick estimate for me, which is at 1.5% year over year based on steps for them. Police is at about 0.5. 27 will be fairly confident. It's 28 when that broader step, when folks get out of the academy, is going to hit them next year.

So Rachel and I went back and forth on how we'd want to present that. That's why we left it at union negotiations for now, pending how the Board wants to proceed with that. We do have some zero increases. Zorning Board of Appeals is a one-person office, so that's one and a half, so that's steps. Town Clerk, we left those flat at three and three, but I just wanted to note there is an additional cost rather than putting it into the expenses we just need to call out it's approximately seventy five thousand dollars because there's three elections in in 27. And so Board of Assessors, again, slightly up, just again, steps, human resources. We slightly increased their expenses, so we are in a trial with ArcCD. We paid for that out of actually our consultant funds this year, but for subsequent years we have to build that into HR.

that's a tool that allows you to evaluate contracts against each other the schools have that as well and it's going to be incredibly helpful in negotiations Police. I did leave expenses at 4%. Again, that's recognizing the increase in the hybrid cruiser costs, which are not capital expenses for them. They're operational costs. Building, That's All Steps. Library, 3.5% for expenses, recognizing their increase in computer software licensing, which is fairly substantial as well there. And I believe that's what we gave them last year. I did note they're taking two part-time to one full-time position. We haven't modified that in terms of the percentage for them.

Unknown, I don't know if one's could be a benefited part-time and they're adding hours because they have some smaller hours, but I'm presuming that's becoming a benefited position. and the other thing with library, just a whole two is that we do have, and this is something the board also discusses as part of negotiations, and the library does have that unique provision for personal services, the materials cost attributable to that. and then the only other one is NRC, again that has to do with steps. And then schools here, we have maintained the 3% for both personal services and expenses. The other provision is certainly which the board has previously discussed and determined is the low end of our capital financing range at 6.2%. Rachel, I don't know if you want to add anything. Did I hit everything?

Thanks, Megan. Yes, I think you hit all the highlights there. Thank you.

Any questions or comments from the board?

I had a couple questions. So a couple of the zeros, I wasn't sure. I think we should put a percentage in there. So town report. Printing seems to be going up everywhere that I go to print things.

We've reduced the number of reports that we're printing.

Okay. that that's why that you're right but that's why that's decreased okay um the celebrations committee I think we got ourselves in and a bit of a whole because we didn't keep up with the fact that expenses rise. everything they pay for is an expense and every single expense as we all know walking around. is rising year over year. So it doesn't make sense to me that we wouldn't allocate the same increase on their expenses that we've allocated to every other board. it's not a meaningful amount of money, but I think it's appropriate to acknowledge that all of those are out of pocket expenses, they're volunteers. and so the expenses if we increased it by the 3% we're assuming every other department in town is going to incur would seem to me to be fair and responsible.

We gave them everything they were asking for last year, and I think that they've demonstrated a remarkable self-sufficiency. I am completely comfortable with the proposal that is put in front of us and I simply don't agree with the 3% increase.

So Tom, why would their costs not increase like everybody else's?

their cost structure, I mean, what is it that you envision that's in their cost? They fundraised for a tremendous amount of the money. They had a significant increase that was greater than what they expected. last year. We covered separately Memorial Day and the cost to rent the audio equipment, for example. I think they've been well covered over the past 12 months or so. And we haven't heard from them. We haven't heard a thing from Carl Nelson.

So why would one advocate to get the normal budget that we have been speaking about in town? that expenses are going up 3%. They rent bands. They rent equipment. The Memorial Day, I believe, is $400, $800. What is that?

It's a little more than that because of the flags, but we get some reimbursement on them.

Right, so the cost of flags on the cemeteries and audio system at Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Why would we short that? I just can't understand that. That seems to me to be penny wise and pound foolish.

I don't believe that we're shorting it. That's my point. Carl is not shy. We haven't heard one thing from Carl about any request for additional funds. I'd like to hear what Carl has to say.

I don't believe we asked Carl. We sent the invitation to...

I don't think we asked him last year either. and he was not shy about coming forward asking for a significant increase which we were happy to give him.

No, we weren't happy to give it to him, Tom.

Let's remember that we were not happy. I think we should reach out to Carl.

Didn't he get an invitation to the old board? The celebrations committee did, yes.

I have a question. So this is similar to what Marjorie is saying. So if everybody else has gone up by 3%, it's presumably because the cost of doing it went up because... just like a cola, right? Everything goes up. So what does Morse's Pond have to go up by 3% at the celebrations? What are they incurring that's rising at the same level as inflation, but the celebrations committee isn't.

And to add on that, the veterans, West Suburban Veterans District is exactly the same. It's going up 3%.

I think that's quite different. The operation of the West Suburban Veterans District, I would be curious about what the expenses are for Morses Pond. That's a fair question about why those expenses go up. I don't know what's included in that.

Well, Morse's Pond, it's the cutting of the weeds and water treatment.

And none of those organizations do the fundraising to cover the expense? I mean, I think that's the other piece is that I have tremendous respect for Roy Switzler's capability at raising money. I mean, his track record is Envious. And I think that they've done a very good job, coupled with the increase that they received last year, coupled with the additional money for Memorial Day, As I say, I'd like to hear from Carl. I'm completely open to what Carl in this capacity as the treasurer for the celebrations committee has to say.

I think it's like, just so we're clear what it is, it's like $600.

I was just going to say, Colette, we couldn't see you before. Now I can see you. Go ahead.

That's okay. I am actually sympathetic to the notion that we don't want to get ourselves in the situation we were before where you know Inadvertently or not, Celebrations Committee hadn't been asking for a raise until they got themselves into an awkward position. I think that last year we really tried to make sure that we shared the wealth as much as we could with all the people who were asking for their strategic initiatives. and that included the Cultural Council as well. And the reason we gave them extra funding is so they could do a little bit more. with what they're trying to do so I should think I would be supportive of you know two or three percent there and trying to get three percent over time if we can't do it this year but to try and build in um

baseline increases for those groups that we had to fight hard for last year so we don't get back into that situation but I would say it's celebrations and cultural council to be fair oh you'd say for both I would because both of them last year were advocating at the same time slightly different approaches but you know the cultural council is trying to reinvigorate itself do more with what they receive and again it's a very small budget I think that you know we if we build it in if we can afford it and we build it in which because they're so small we probably can then we set them on a pathway for success without having to come back to this periodically where they find themselves in a difficult position.

You know, we sat at our retreat and we talked about how money was the principal issue. and it continues to be a principal issue. There are reports that have just come out about the very dangerous situation that municipalities find themselves in. When I go down through this list, and I see the increase in expenses based on increased subscription costs, based on uncontrolled costs that we incur with some of these departments. I understand that. but then to be giving money where we needn't be giving money at a time when we shouldn't be giving money when we needn't give it just is not the right approach to or the right message to send to the residents.

so I disagree Tom that they don't need it the subscriptions are increasing for everyone I think one of the things that the Cultural Council wanted to do and Beth please correct me if I'm wrong was to try and have more like a newsletter and to send materials out to a particular group of residents. If they're doing something with, for example, constant contact, those expenses go up. I am sensitive to the fact that Celebrations Committee is paying for services and they're recruiting performers or different things whose costs are going up so and that's I think how we got ourselves in the situation last year. I completely agree that the message we send is very important but I think with these two it's de minimis that this is not where the issue really exists.

So Colette, you are correct in your assessment of the cultural council.

Megan, just out of curiosity, has every other department indicated 3% or that was... I mean what you added for every other department.

So the ones that are increased are based upon either the personal services are all based on the accounts for the expenses. It's largely based on what was indicated at and which we know to be true in terms of, so if I just scroll up, the IT costs, which that's just not for, I mean, that's the whole town except for schools.

Right, but the rest of them that are 3%.

Yeah, we have a couple. I had Memorial Day at 2%, and then the rest are 3%, yes, except for those above.

I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear. Is it because you got requests from those departments for 3% that you put in 3%?

No. That's our town-wide financial plan overall, 3%.

Tom, I'm hearing that the majority supports... at 3%. Okay. For a cultural council and celebration. So Megan, I'd ask you to factor that in. Okay.

What is the actual subscription cost that we pay?

So we have a lot. So it could be from QuickBooks. It can be from Office 365. It's for various constant contact, you know, those types of costs.

What is the amount?

Oh, I don't have the amount offhand. I can get that to you, but I just don't have it offhand.

Colette, while we have you on the screen, what are your thoughts about leaving the columns that say union negotiations or putting something else in?

So, I mean, I think it's fine to leave it at that as long as you make some sort of statement that what we're trying to get to overall on this municipal side is 3%. and what I'm hearing and Rachel and Megan please correct me if I'm wrong that you know we're aiming to get there because as we are planning for this and certainly overall the guidelines we are we're looking to what the town right financial plan said we could afford we're trying to live with it within our means and so if we say union negotiations or um whatever we decide to say here i think we need to make it clear that we're trying to aim to get to 3% on the municipal side.

Okay. That's what, I mean, we've said that we're going to follow the townwide financial plan.

We can certainly beef that up in the budget prep manual as well. And to Collette's point, which is... is at 3%, keep in mind, we had a $1.9 million deficit. So we're still working to resolve that.

But let me just confirm. So we have under personal services for police, Union negotiations, if you put 3% in there, I assume you mean at the end of the day for union and non-union personnel that the blended increase is no more than 3%.

If you put that in, yeah. But it's tough to say that when you haven't got into negotiations yet. Right. It just says 3% now. That's what you're shooting for. Right. That's what we can afford.

Right.

Barely.

All right. Does anybody have different comments about leaving it at union negotiations now and being more specific in the budget prep?

I have a question about the pros and cons of putting in what we know to be the increase based on Steps, Longevity, and non-union personnel in those departments so that as we enter negotiations we know what our fixed expectation is so we have a better sense of where the gap is that we're negotiating against.

So we require that. That's exactly right.

But putting it in there so that

But they haven't calced them yet? Right. So they put in zero COLA and calc it out. It's easy for us to do a calc out because it's a straight number, even with our steps. With the unions, there's a lot more that goes into it. So they'll budget it. I had fire do it just because I knew they were going to be excessive. So this is what we do for every year. And then we will pool those funds separately. there'll be a, whatever that number is, that's that number. And then we pull separately any funds that we have dedicated towards union settlement. into one line item that we then pull from a town meeting.

So I think what you're saying is you will calculate the non-union steps and everything else.

yeah the non-union and the union steps prior to our negotiation strategies yes okay perfect okay any other questions

Okay, Colette, we are going to make the changes to the expense lines for celebration and cultural council. I don't see any further comments, so could I ask you please for a motion?

Sure. Move 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 individualised 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.

Kenny.

Aye.

Collette. Aye. Beth. Aye. Tom.

Aye.

And I vote aye as well. Okay. Thank you very much, Rachel. Okay. I have not had an opportunity to review the latest iteration of the Townwide Letter. Could we please do that on Tuesday?

I know, but it was a busy day. Okay.

Thank you.

We also had the annual report. And this is a clean copy that I gave you in hard copy. Okay.

There were a lot of changes there, too. Can we do that on Tuesday, too? Sorry.

Yes.

Okay. And the minutes?

We had September 16th. You want to do the minutes on? Have we looked at them before?

this is no this okay yes we're gonna do that next week okay but for sure next week it was just busy today okay I'm trying to get to the end of the minutes. OK. Chair's report, I'm just going to abbreviate it just so you're updated with Tom's and my meetings with advisory and school committee. We told advisory we'd be voting on the budget guidelines and we updated them on the most recent information we had on DCAM. Their report is going to the printer on October 22nd and they were scheduled to vote on the last three motions last night. I haven't had a chance to watch their meeting. School Committee is directing staff to prepare three budgets, one at 3%, as we recommended as our guidance.

one at level service and one that includes strategic plan and critical needs because they want to see if they have to cut what that means to strategic plan and critical needs. They know we're at 3%, but their guidance is to prepare three. We had a long discussion on the MCAS results. and apparently very few municipalities achievements are back to the 2019 results including Wellesley and they're working on school improvement plans. Schools have a negotiation planning meeting with the union in early November and a fair number of students are sick, but fewer people are testing for COVID. And apparently if the students are not that sick, they're coming to school. So that's not great news, but that's the way it is. Okay. and this is what happens when you work on the computer and not hard copy.

While you're looking at that, did we announce the flu shot clinic?

Yes. Great. Yes, Megan did. Okay, we're now moving into our last agenda item, which is... Marjorie, I'd ask you to just give a reminder about the Townwide Capital. Oh, sorry. Yes. Right. And I did write it then. Go ahead, Colette.

Yeah, I'm just asking the board if there's any comments on the Townwide Capital Planning Committee to get them to me as soon as possible. The Policy Subcommittee meets next week. on Thursday. I normally try and send a packet to Kenny, the other member of the subcommittee, several days in advance so he has a chance to look at that and I've received comments from almost everyone, but I'm still waiting for some comments. And if you can get into me as soon as possible, this is the fourth request.

Thanks. Let's try to get them to Colette by the weekend so that she can incorporate them and get them to Kenny in time. So our last agenda item is to enter executive session to conduct strategy regarding potential litigation with the Commonwealth regarding the disposition of surplus MassBay Community College land. and I request a motion that the board vote to convene an executive session for the purpose of discussing potential litigation with the Commonwealth. regarding the disposition of surplus MassBay Community College land under Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A, Exemption Number 3. as I declare that having such discussions in open session would have a detrimental effect on the town.

move to enter executive session under mass general law chapter 30a subsection 21a exemption number three 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.

before I call for the vote, I just want to remind the public that what's discussed in executive session will not be discussed in public. The board members are keeping that within the executive session. and the minutes will be published at whatever time the board deems to release them. So they will not be in the minutes for the rest of our meeting tonight. Okay, so we have a second Beth. Aye. Kenny? Aye. Collette? Aye. Tom?

Aye.

And I vote aye as well. Okay, we are now in executive session.