Select Board April 27, 2026

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Wellesley Select Board meeting of Monday, April 27, 2026 in the Giuliani Room at Town Hall. Here from the Select Board are Vice Chair Tom Ulfelder, Secretary Colette O'Frank, Beth Sullivan Woods, Kenny Largess, and myself, Marjorie Freiman. Also here with us are Executive Director Megha Jop, Assistant Executive Director Corey Testa, Town Council Tom Harrington, and Eric Russell. The meeting is being broadcast live on Comcast Channel 8 and Verizon Channel 40 and will be available for later viewing on wellesleymedia.org. Before we begin our regular meeting, I'd like to say a few words on behalf of the board about the devastating events that transpired over the weekend. We are heartbroken by the tragic loss of two young lives in our community.

This is a time of profound grief for our entire community and there are no words that can fully express the sorrow we feel. We recognize that many are struggling to process what has happened, and we encourage residents to look out for one another in the days ahead. Our hearts are with the loved ones, classmates, neighbors, school faculty and staff, and everyone who is feeling the weight of this loss. We are extremely grateful to our first responders and public safety officials for their swift and professional response. We are also indebted to school officials and critical incident support professionals and counselors who are supporting our students and their families, faculty, and police officers. the appropriate authorities are conducting a thorough investigation and the board supports and respects the integrity of that process.

We cannot make sense of these distressing events but we can respond with compassion, with care, and with a commitment to support one another through grief. We are reminded of how closely we are connected and how deeply we depend on one another. May we all be the best of ourselves as we move forward in the coming days and weeks. Our next agenda item is citizen speak. I don't think there's anyone here for citizen speak or for an agenda item. Yes, okay. Okay, so I will turn it over to Tom. We are going to vote the town meeting warrant and I'll turn it over first to Tom.

I just wasn't sure if there was something you wanted to say.

So we prepared the warrant that was in the the packet with one modification so under and I'll pass this around to the board under article 3 we modified that just to read to see if the town will vote to increase the appropriation for legal services the amount Appropriate Select Board Shared Services under the motion to have Article 8 because there had been a number which is in the motion, so to make it more of a generic article. So I'll pass this around to the board, but we'd be seeking authorization Excuse me seeking approval of the warrant So that we can post it basically immediately

Okay, any comments? All right, Colette, may I have a motion, please?

So move to vote on the, move to approve and vote the May 11, 2026 special time meeting warrant

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. We are now, yes. We are now going to move into executive session. I request a motion that the board vote to convene an executive session for the purposes of discussing strategy with respect to potential litigation regarding 40 Oakland Street, as I declare that having such discussions in open session would have a detrimental effect on the town's position.

So moved to enter Executive Session under Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Subsection 21A, Exemption Number 3. to discuss strategy with respect to potential litigation regarding 40 Oakland Street and to invite Megan Jopp, Corey Testa, and Town Council Tom Harrington and Eric Russell. Are we inviting special counsel? and Special Counsel Nick Shapiro and Robbie Hopkins 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 executive session, the board will return to open session to take up the remainder of the agenda.

Second.

Aye.

Tom? Aye. Kenny? Aye. Beth? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Okay.

Rod, we're ready to go back to open session.

Okay, good evening. We are returning to open session from executive session.

to open session.

and our next agenda item is to discuss the May 2026 special town meeting motion language regarding the sale and development of the state-owned land located at 40 Oakland Street and I know Cory has been keeping a list of people who have requested time to speak tonight. So we'll ask you please to keep your comments to three minutes and approach the table and turn on the mic and give us your name and street.

First we have Michael Tobin.

Good evening. Michael Tobin, 45 Cottage Street. I'm president of the Wellesley Conservation Land Trust and want to read the announcement that we put out last week and sent to the select board previously. The Wellesley Conservation Land Trust, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of the natural environment since 1958, has retained Hill Law Firm to represent its interests in matters relating to the MassBay Community College Forest. among other reasons the land trust has asked council to determine whether that land is protected under article 97 which guarantees for all the right to a clean environment, including its natural, scenic, historical and aesthetic qualities for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

The MassBay Forest, as described by community advocates and outlined on the Save MassBay Forest website, represents a significant part of Wellesley's heritage of inherited natural environment enjoyed by Wellesley and the broader region for decades, consistent with its mission The Land Trust is taking proactive steps to help ensure that the conservation, environmental, and community interests associated with this valued historical and frequently traversed land are fully considered and protected. The Land Trust brings substantial experience in advancing conservation protections through the legal system, including a successful case brought before the Massachusetts Appeals Court that helped establish important precedent for the enforcement of conservation restrictions.

In that case, the court affirmed that conservation organizations may pursue meaningful remedies when protected land is damaged, strengthening tools available to safeguard open space across the Commonwealth. and I should note that the Trustees of Reservations and the Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition provided amicus briefs to that case. Our longstanding role for 68 years has been to safeguard the natural spaces that define Wellesley. Engaging experience council allows us to thoughtfully and responsibly support the protection of this important forest while drawing on the past experience in defending conservation values. At this time, we're focused on evaluating the situation and supporting efforts aligned with our mission. We remain committed to working constructively with stakeholders including the Select Board and will provide updates as appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Michael.

The next person that signed up was Anne Mara Lanza. Okay, great. Deed, you're up next.

Good afternoon, good evening, morning, whatever it is for all of you who have been up all this time. Deed McCollum, 6 Pickerel Terrace. I have a request and a question. The first is, In the spirit, when you called this special town meeting, in the spirit of hearing from the town, I respectfully request that you ask the moderator to allow time for residents who are not town meeting members to comment before a town meeting member can make the request to call the question. There have been multiple occasions when residents attended a town meeting wanting to speak and were never given the opportunity. and then recognizing that the town has to respond to the state by May 13th, this is the question, does receiving feedback on May 11th allow enough time for Wellesley to effectively negotiate?

As this seems to be the town's final chance to articulate what we'd like to have included in the RFP, I hope we use this opportunity to preserve the forest for future generations, as various people have indicated they want to do and was the initial focus of the discussion described the types of housing Wellesley desires and identified desirable mitigations for parking and traffic. not negotiating with the state, I feel, leaves us in a very vulnerable potential lose, lose, lose scenario. No Protection of the Forest for Future Generations, Housing that Does Not Address the Wellesley and Commonwealth Needs, and Delays Expansion of Educational and Recreational Facilities for Mass-Based Students. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Criswell?

Thank you. Paul Criswell, 395 Linden Street. With regard to the upcoming town meeting in three minutes, I have three points that I would like to make. First of all, it occurs to me that the most important thing that town meeting can provide to you in order to optimize our ability to get the best possible deal from the Commonwealth. is that we need to offer you a full-throated endorsement of your ability, your right, your authority to negotiate a deal with the Commonwealth. you are the executive body of the town and we need to stand behind you in terms of your

Testa, Ulfelder, Wellesley, Councilor who it is that actually proposes a motion to provide you with that support from the floor of town meeting. And I'm willing and happy to coordinate however that may best work out. It occurs to me that it may be better received if somebody from the floor of town meeting offers that endorsement of your ability to do this and your authority. So I will sort of see how things shake out in terms of deciding whether to offer that amendment. Second point, it is negotiation 101 that you never

tell your negotiating partner how much you value each different element of what it is that you are negotiating. and therefore I would like to urge you not to do any sort of vote on the floor of town meeting that is somehow calculated, whether it's a roll call vote or a preference vote or something like that, I think it's vitally important that you allow town meeting members to articulate town meeting members and residents to articulate our interests but not to quantify it because the Commonwealth will take a look at that. They'll look at your list of 10 things, and they'll knock numbers 4 through 10 off and not even talk about it. And they'll say, your people didn't even want that. And if you attempt to use any of those to trade for something they'll say that's not worth anything.

So it will be absolute poison to our negotiating position if we do that. So if we take votes on various elements to see how much people support them, I would urge you to do that via voice vote as opposed to a roll call vote at the very least. and then third, with regard to litigation, I think two things are absolutely vital. Number one, that we preserve the litigation option. And towards that end, I believe that we need to fully fund the possibilities of litigation. Because to do otherwise would be to just summarily surrender in advance. But number two, I think it's equally vital to know that litigation is a last resort. does not lead to a satisfactory outcome even when you win everything up and down the line.

It is much better to end up with a negotiated settlement. even if you believe you have very valid points to make in litigation. So I would urge you to preserve that option but also to realize that that is a last resort that is something we should proceed with only if we are absolutely dissatisfied with anything that we can get from the Commonwealth. and thank you for everything you're doing with regard to this.

Thank you very much, Paul.

Hi, Anne Mara Alonza, 18 Oakland Street. And I've lived on Oakland Street for 30 years. I was 61 and 18. Sorry, I missed my first opportunity to speak, but thank you, Corey, for finding time for me. I think I want to start with saying so when this project started I'm here actually I'm going to say on the behalf of the steering committee of building a better Wellesley and when this project started we had three main demands that we asked from the state one that the forest be preserved Two, that we get the housing allowed by law. And three, that the housing honored our inclusionary zoning so that at least 20% was set aside for affordable. We've gotten all those things. The state has now said that they're going to cluster the housing on the parking lot and the rest will be preserved and that they're going to honor our inclusionary zoning. So in our opinion, it's time to start talking about all the other things we want, because I think there's an opportunity to get more from the state, because I think they want this project to be successful.

So I sent a letter, but I wanted to just highlight some of the items that we think it's important to ask for. And I'm just hoping that the town meeting discussion can get there. And I apologize, I haven't seen what the motion language is at this point, but I'm hoping this can be incorporated. We want the housing to be limited to the paved parking lot that exists today. We don't believe that we need to take any more of the forest. We believe that there can be a great housing project with 180 units without going beyond the parking lot. We want that housing to meet the needs of seniors, young family, and our workforce. We want at least 20% to be set aside, but we wanted to really honor inclusionary zoning so that 5% does hit that higher workforce housing level that we've characterized in our zoning. We want traffic mitigation to be part of this. And we want all this specified in the RFP. And I think it's really important that people understand this. It's gotta be specified ahead of time.

we want there to be traffic mitigation including all the parking for students on the eastbound side of Oakland Street on the side with the college and some work done on the access to Route 9. We want increased pedestrian safety along Oakland Street, which includes sidewalk all the way down to the entrance of Centennial Park. We want dedicated parking for people who want to access Centennial Park from what's currently the MassBay site. So some parking that is reserved for users of the MassBay Forest and Centennial Park. We want housing design that fits in with the surrounding community. And that might mean things like setting it back from the road or else green space between the buildings. We want that thought about and we want that specified as something that they're looking for in the RFP. because we don't want a big, huge high rise. Nobody wants that there. We think that you can build really nice housing on that spot. We want play spaces for children.

because you're honestly just too far from any of the town's playgrounds there and we want, of course, sustainable construction and design. We think we can get a lot of these things. And we want to go to the table. We want the town to go to the table and argue for these things. We're concerned that litigation throws all of these options away. So we are very supportive, and I know that's the discussion for how many, but very supportive of litigation. I think that finally the thing I'd say is this project we're basically it appears it feels like from the outside that the state is basically willing to gift us 40 acres of open space roughly If you remember what we paid for the North 40, I mean this is an amazing thing for the town to get. And what does this mean? We have to allow them to have the housing that they are allowed to have by law.

So it feels that if anybody who wants to sue the state rather than accept all this land, it's not about the land. It's about the housing. And people stand up and say they're not anti-housing, they just don't want this. I'm not sure what the definition of anti-housing is if it isn't what we're seeing here. So we are just very supportive of the whole process and we really hope that this town meeting discussion will be very productive and that we can touch on all these points so that we have a very good sense of the town when we go hopefully sit down at the table to talk about it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ann Mara.

Thank you, Ann Mara. Sally Watt?

Hi Sally. Good evening. My name is Sally Watts and I live at 43A Atwood Street. Last fall the state invited us to tell them what conditions we would like to see in the RFP. that they plan to issue for development of the 40 Oakland Street property. Originally, the select board scheduled a visioning session for December to elicit those priorities. It then canceled the session. now the select board has scheduled a special town meeting to elicit this very information. and as has been discussed recently the state has again invited the town to provide input stating that they are willing to develop the housing on the site of the already disturbed land. while preserving the remainder of the 45-acre property. They have said they are open to requiring inclusionary zoning as an element.

This is indeed good news. Now we need to tell them the provisions we want, as previously enumerated by Anne Marlonza. I believe we should focus on working with the state rather than taking an antagonistic position, which would be likely to involve expenditure of a large sum of taxpayer dollars. that route might jeopardize the value most often cited by residents, which is preservation of Mass Bay Forest. Thank you for considering my views.

Thank you very much, Sally. Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

That was everyone that signed up.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure. All right, Corey, thank you very much. We'll now move to the consideration and discussion of our draft articles. Megan's going to put them up on the screen. So just a brief line of introduction. The way the articles are crafted now is in three parts. The first one is asking town meeting for its opinions on accepting the conditions that the state has outlined in its April 13th letter. That's it. That's what the question is. Do you want us to accept those conditions? Second motion is, would you advise the select board to negotiate

not only on the April 13th letter but trying to get the best outcome we could for the town including several elements. and the third is, do you not advise the select board to enter in negotiations at all? Or would you prefer that the town litigate the question? So it's very, It's straightforward, it follows, and it gives town meeting a broad area within which to make comments on all of the options. Alright, so Megan's working on it. Tom, would you like to make any other comments about how they're structured?

Yeah, I would. Yes, please. Thanks.

Recording in progress.

Just in time. So if you look, so motion one, or article one, no motion. Motion two, recall that we brought forward a draft motion for you on Thursday and I thought we had a great discussion and there was a lot of good comments. Kenny brought forward a different version which the board voted to adopt with a number of changes. So what you see here is my attempt to incorporate the changes that the board discussed to Kenny's motion on Thursday. and I think I've heard from all of you since I sent out this new version. So I suspect there's more lively conversation to have. I'm happy to walk you through it, but I think you all know it pretty well. How would you like me to proceed, Marjorie?

Go ahead, Tom.

Okay. All right, so let's start with motion one. So again, the idea here was to capture the offer of the state in what the state is offering to us. And so I draw your attention to A, B, C, and D. So will town meeting advise the board to negotiate within the framework proposed by the Commonwealth, which is development of 180 units, concentrating development on and around the parking lot area, requiring the developer to deliver a conservation restriction to a qualified entity of the town's choosing for the remainder of the site approximately 37 to 38 acres or a little more if you condensed it to the Paved Area, and requiring the developer to comply with inclusionary zoning requirements. So that was...

That sums up what the state offered. If that's what you want to do, we can move on to motion two. If there's comments or questions or amendments to that, we can look at that now.

Yeah, go ahead Kenny, I'm sorry.

So on motion one, a few things. So I think we should revert to the, instead of negotiate within the framework, I think we should say approve the framework. And then because, the framework is exactly what was laid out below. And the negotiation, so the point of this is are we gonna accept what's been effectively offered at this point? So by saying approve, you're saying everything below that line, A, B, C, and D, that is what the framework is. And then the second piece I would add, to continue engagement with the Commonwealth regarding design impacts, compliance with proposed development, compliance of the proposed development with certain municipal bylaws, and such other matters as the Select Board deems advisable.

So that essentially allows us to engage with the Commonwealth on the important issues that are not captured by their framework. I propose. And the last thing is, I do think we agreed that mentioning the seven to eight within their framework was advisable. So I know the 37 or 38 gets you there, but I think it is important that people, when they're reading that, say concentrating the development on around the parking lot area is seven or eight acres.

So I don't have any problem with approve the framework, because the language in A, B, C, and D is taken exactly directly from the letter, except for this 37 to 38 acres, which is why it's parentheses. But my thought about this was not to go further with the negotiation. Motion one, do you want to accept what the Commonwealth is offering us? I think there will be some people who might be in favor of that. If you want us to negotiate more, go on to motion two.

I have to say I did find that confusing to add the stuff that's in blue there because then it's like muddied with option two for me. I do think that we did say that B, it was more transparent to say seven to eight acres. I'm okay with that, but I found the last clause that you're proposing confusing and a little bit conflicting with option two.

So the reason I put that was because when we talked the last time about saying, originally I proposed approve the framework. We talked about that wording. and there's different versions of negotiate within the framework, negotiate from the framework. So that blurb at the bottom was intended to address that comment at the top. I don't... The reality is if we get an offer, if we if this is the route we go, we're not just going to not deal with wetlands or water runoff or parking. We're gonna engage with them, whether or not they listen to us or not, it's a different story. One way or the other, I don't feel strongly about the last blurb. I do feel strongly.

I don't think even if that passes, it doesn't prohibit us from doing that. That's our job, right? It may be confusing to time meeting members. It's confusing to me.

I think as you just discussed though, Kenny, that that's why I prefer negotiate within the framework because I think that sending a message that we approve A through D gives us an ability to engage with the Commonwealth and to negotiate additional elements. As you know, I feel very strongly about stormwater management. on the site because of the topography and the downslope impact of any project that impervious surface there. and I think I find E to be very confusing. I'd rather say negotiate the framework, not have E. and I think that we either include 7 to 8 and 37 to 38 or we take both out. And I could go either way.

So I prefer putting the numbers in because I think it makes it more concrete. I could go eight or fewer acres and 38 or to me, I would say no more than eight acres and no fewer than 37. But I think I would put the numbers in. So I like the, I don't know if it's an E, or it's and to further continue engagement on that it's not an E as if it's an element of the framework. I think I'd pull it out and make it a final paragraph but if

motion 1 is the will of town meeting then I if we don't acknowledge that we are negotiating on the other elements, I don't think we have a lot of standing to pursue those other elements. I would rather be forthright that if you support this particular framework, then further advise us to engage on items such as design, compliance, stormwater, traffic, et cetera. Otherwise, I don't know why anyone would approve motion one if motion two, they can discuss getting all the same things.

For me, I think it gives you more clarity that motion one, this is the framework, and we're gonna go after these other items.

That's exactly my point. Motion 1 is intended to be different from Motion 2, and now Motion 1 is more like Motion 2. It's meant to be a starker, for a town meeting to understand this is what the state has offered. And you could advise us to go and just accept these. or there's a whole other list of things that we think are important and maybe you want us to negotiate a broader construct.

Okay, so I didn't understand that. You view motion one as take the proposal, develop an RFP off it, don't go down the pathway. of Design Density.

No, no, no, not necessarily. I mean, we have site plan review, we have a lot of We have some authority that applies regardless of what the statute says. So we're not going to throw out all of those and other statutory and bylaw things we have, but it's essentially accept what the state is offering, period. Or do you want us to go beyond that?

So no more negotiation. Is that the idea? I'm just trying to clarify. I'm not... so they can issue the RFP based on those things and then the developer goes through whatever's available in the town within our rights.

and the reason why if we go back to the original language to negotiate within the framework, we have all of the various issues that we might want to bring up that we can feel our way through in discussions with the Commonwealth. This limits us. The Commonwealth can say what you're asking for isn't consistent with your vote. It isn't consistent with your limited to design impact compliance of the proposed development. I reject that notion. I think the much simpler language gives the select board a clear direction from town meeting and gives us more room within which to negotiate when you're actually engaged with the common law.

I feel like Marjorie can present this as this is what they put on paper. Exactly. We're going to have a discussion with the state, but let's not pretend we're negotiating at that point. Exactly. If that motion passes, everybody can sugarcoat it however they want we have no leverage and they're just going to do what they might be nice to us and include X, Y, and Z but this is We're going to take it and they're going to build what they want where they want. And we may suggest that they enhance the parking or that they don't build it X stories high or they address runoff. But that's it. We're going to get whatever they want to give us at that point. So I agree with Marjorie. I would make this as stark a choice as possible because that's the reality we're dealing with. But then that's why I take E out. That's fine. Absolutely.

Take it out. and Beth if you're more comfortable we can say approximately with the numbers because that's I believe what's in the article.

I could go either way. I didn't understand the difference that you logically would vote for motion two because you can give us more feedback. on the different elements you care about. Unless there are people who are just comfortable with one.

Unless you don't care about any other elements. Exactly. Exactly. Okay, good. Motion two.

Are we putting approximately in, Corey, the approximately disappeared? do we want the I think I thought we did you want approximately in both of them

I'll go no because I don't like approximately I would have no more than 8 acres or I would have 7 to 8 like for me it's If we're going with, Marjorie, your interpretation of this, then the deal is seven to eight acres and 37. So I'm fine with the way you articulated it with these words.

Can we stay on motion one just for a second? I had an idea. So it seems to me that on some level we're setting motion one up as the straw man so that we can get to motion two. and I think there's a yes and no vote and what does that really mean? Does the yes vote mean go cut a deal based on just the terms that were offered? So instead of saying, and you'll notice that I connected the two by saying, if town meeting votes motion one in the negative, then further moves as follows. Instead, if we said if town meeting votes to take no action, on motion one, so that we'll get their sense, but we're not gonna have them vote on it, or their option is to vote yes on it, vote no on it, or take no action on it. and then if they take no action we move right into motion two and then you're not left with maybe some residual confusion from the yes or no vote under motion one.

So how do you explain take no action to town meeting?

we would put forward a motion that they take no action on motion one. So it's essentially, it's laying on the table, it's indefinitely postponing it. Town meeting has a number of different ways of handling it, but we're gonna say, We discussed motion one, but we're not going to vote on motion one. We're going to now move to motion two.

Can't you just add in the negative or takes no action? Yeah, then further move is followed.

But why would we put it out there and then advise take no action? The idea is to see if there are people who think that's enough.

but I think you want their feedback on that. You want to understand the sense of the meeting. Is this enough? And if a majority of them want to vote yes, it's enough. but they can do that.

They will have seen motion two. So I welcome town meeting to have a right to vote on motion one as is, which is what we've heard from Bill. and then they're saying we embrace this approach.

We had a technical definition issue at annual town meeting and we have a lot of new town meeting members. I prefer not to put a motion and then lay it on the table. Okay, motion two.

Okay, motion two. So this is the negotiating motion and this is town meeting's opportunity to express to the select board what they would like to see us pursue in negotiation. so and it's broadly stated town meeting authorized the select board exercising its powers discretion and judgment to negotiate with the commonwealth for the disposition and development of the property located at Forty Oakland Street, and then we've laid out A through I, each one being a separate point. A through K. So the first A is that the development shall consist of multifamily housing and be located on or immediately adjacent to the existing parking area so as to minimize the overall footprint of disturbance.

Any comments?

So my comment is I don't know why we would limit it to multifamily housing. I suspect that's what would end up there if something ends up there. I think casting that net broader is a better idea. So I would suggest it says that the development be located on or immediately adjacent to the existing blah, blah, blah. and that way we don't limit ourselves to multifamily.

So I would just take out the word multifamily. We know it's going to be housing if it's a development, that the development consists of housing and be located. Because I think the multifamily word is confusing to me if you decide you're going to do a specific... Target audience. So I just don't think it's necessary. I just put housing. Or qualified housing.

I think it's clearer if it says multifamily because I think it's important to be clear that it's likely to be multifamily housing if it's going to be seven to eight acres it's going to be that this might make people think oh it's going to be just typical

But if we get to this motion, we're not presupposing seven or eight acres.

A says to be located on or immediately adjacent to the existing parking area.

And there's going to have to be give and take in the density and the land area. The reason I thought multifamily was helpful was because we've asked since the beginning, could it be age restricted? Could it accommodate other people? and if we want to say to the state we'd like the price point to be accessible to the workforce and to seniors who are downsizing and to new families, that might suggest smaller units, some smaller units or some combination and clearly multifamily because you can't put single family 180 units on that small of

I like it how it is if you're comfortable with it.

I don't feel like this would actually tie our hands if for some reason we're built 20.

No, okay. And I think there's one point that was in your thing, Kenny. I actually agree with that.

Oh, in the lead-up. I think we need to say town meeting that town meeting advised the select board not authorized to state the obvious we're asking for their town meetings advice not

You already have the authorization.

Even suggesting.

Right. OK. Everybody okay with that?

Lastly, since we're in the lead-in, where it says maximizing benefits, I would say in minimizing the impact, I think the word harm presupposes that what happens is not good.

Okay? All right.

Okay. So moving to B. B. The developer shall offer a conservation restriction to be held by the town on the remainder of the property so that it is permanently preserved as open space for passive recreation.

and it says that because the state said a qualified entity of the town's choosing and my understanding was the board would prefer the CR be held by the town.

Can I ask a question to Town Council? Should we say, should it be permanently preserved as publicly accessible open space rather than open spaces? only accessible to the residents. Because I'm not sure if the conservation restriction is there, the ownership is still somebody else's, right?

Yeah, and we have negotiated conservation restrictions that do not allow public access. So I think that that's probably a good add.

Okay, so be as publicly accessible open space, Corey, just right at the end of that, yeah, end of B.

Right, right there.

It's publicly available, accessible.

Publicly accessible. Good. There you go. OK. Anything else on B?

Okay, C, that the scale, massing, and architecture of the development be designed to blend in with its surroundings.

So I did have a question on that. Its surroundings, if you're being literal, is a nursing home, a forest, a college, and one house. and so if we state that it's either going to be institutional or invisible and I just I'm not sure I'm not sure I'm not sure how practical that is. Could we put neighborhood?

If you wish.

Yeah. It's not going to look like it. It's going to look different. And I think we have to accept that if it's going to be that size.

So I think the point of this one was aesthetics matter. You're right, it's a varied landscape out there, but aesthetics matter.

and we don't typically have a whole lot of control over design we have advisory on design but it's not I think what we're really asking is that the town has meaningful input into the design of the project.

Well, what if you said natural, with its natural and residential surroundings? but it's... That eliminates the commercial properties in the school, Sisters of Charity.

I mean, these are areas that we're going to negotiate against. So I think it's fair to say that in negotiation we would be mindful of the neighborhood and the surroundings.

Colette, I hear your point. I actually think you want this as broad as possible because this is just the advice we're getting.

All right. I mean, I wanted to raise it for us to think about. Okay.

So that one I think is good. So D, that the number of units be reduced to the greatest degree possible.

I think it's aspirational. Yes.

E, that a range of housing types be considered including age-restricted, senior housing, workforce housing, and housing for the disabled.

My one small question on that is if it's housing for the disabled, it would need to be under carers? and their carers. The model that we hear about is the resident, it's like maybe four residents on one carer. And so it should be specified for the disabled and their carers because that might drive the inclusionary zoning might be directed towards that parcel of it.

Well, keep in mind some disabled housing does not necessitate a caregiver. So typically a good example would be the Belclair. So we do have accessible housing. It just so happens that happens to be a two bedroom unit to also provide for a caregiver in that particular instance. but there's certainly disabled housing that would not necessitate that. So I think if you leave it open-ended, it actually covers both. Okay. All right. Okay.

And again, these could be good things that come up in the conversation at town meeting to provide us feedback.

Yep. I have a question about E. Is E intended to elicit conversation about the specific housing gaps that we want to fill or is it intended to be yet we want mixed housing of these particular types, in which case I would like to see affordable 80 to the 140% restricted housing.

We have a requirement for 5% of that.

No, but this would be all.

Well, that's under Jai. That's a separate clause.

I don't think it's under.

Sorry, I. You want it all between 80 and 140?

I'm just saying it's a type that we've talked about truly affordable, right?

You're not going to have somebody agree to a developer bid on 180 units that are affordable.

It won't be economical. And if we have the IZ in there, do we need affordable housing?

It's under I. I think it's addressed under I.

They asked us for our feedback on the kinds of housing we would like to see. So leaving this broad would enable town meeting members to express any kind of opinions on any housing types they might like to see.

And it does say workforce housing, which is that missing middle, if that's what you're alluding to. OK. F?

Okay, so F, that all parking for MassBay be removed from 40 Oakland Street. G? that the Commonwealth assists the town by... Can I actually make an edit here?

Yeah. From the eastbound side, or the westbound side of Oakland Street.

The 40 is that side. It's the address. It's that parcel.

Couldn't they maybe carve out another little part of 40 Oakland and make it into parking?

It says all be removed from 40 Oakland. Yeah, I mean, I think that's 40 Oakland as it sits today.

It's the parcel, the whole parcel.

I trust our lawyers. I used to be one.

If they did carve it out, it actually would decrease the unit count, so it's not to their best interest.

But then it wouldn't count as housing.

so it couldn't be part of the surplus designation. Okay, so moving to G, that the Commonwealth assist the town by improving circulation, ingress slash egress and pedestrian safety along Oak Street and turning movements at Route 9 and Oak Street intersection. We should take the comma out after pedestrian safety.

So I wondered if it would be clearer to say by improving circulation, comma, mass-based student and staff ingress and egress on Route 9. Is that really what we're talking about? Well, that's different.

Yeah, this is for wholesale traffic infrastructure change.

Right. Although it does say later the turning movement at Route 9. So the ingress and egress onto Route 9 from the MassBay students and staff, I didn't see it clearly here.

That's different. If we want to put it in, I think that has to be separate from this. because this is meant to be Oakland Street and the Oakland Route 9 intersection, like, you know, a left-hand turn. on Oakland Street from Route 9, which is more complicated.

I think so.

If we want to put that in, I think it's a whole different thing.

And I think it's important to use that particular terminology because that's what's allowed to be reviewed as part of site plan.

So to Colette's point, I would like us to add a specific item around relocating MassBay student traffic so that it goes directly from Route 9 into the campus.

Not MassBay traffic in general?

MassBay traffic in general. Access to the MassBay campus.

We've discussed that with the state, the ingress and egress further east on Route 9 so that it doesn't all go down Oakland Street. How do people feel about adding that?

I think we need to. We have to ask for it.

As you know, I think it's a great idea that's unrealistic insofar as I think it's an added cost. that they don't have to do. And I think that significant and appropriate infrastructure work at that intersection would help. I mean truly, I would love to see it happen, but I think the cost of a developer being responsible for a new parking lot, the access point, Levin, changing any ADA access issues.

But I think we're not asking the developer to do it, we're asking the state. If you look into the motion language, it says to the town to authorize a select board to negotiate with the commonwealth for the disposition and development blah, blah, blah, and on it goes. I totally agree with you, Tom. I think the developer couldn't support that. But the state has always said this is first and foremost about housing. the education thing is secondary and so to make the housing work I think that that ingress and egress would be really powerful and there's the education bond bill to support the educational needs and the other things that MassBay needs. But to make this successful housing, we could ask for it.

And on top of all of that, it signals that we understand we're trying to mitigate traffic along Oakland Street. not only moving the parking access but trying to direct MassBay traffic directly into MassBay and off of Oakland Street. I understand it may be aspirational but it puts the state on notice that it's important to us.

I just think it's a different item than traffic mitigation on Oakland and pedestrian safety. to the point where we want town meeting to look at the elements that are important to us. I think breaking it out clarifies that we know that's an issue. This is a pretty long list, so not everything gets finalized.

That the Commonwealth assist the town, or how do you want to say it? by providing separate ingress, egress for MassBay. Yeah, yeah.

Well, it's really that the Commonwealth provide, right? Because... Yeah, it's not that... Yeah, the Commonwealth provide.

Provide. Free access to the MassBay campus off of... Provide.

So I don't feel strongly about this one at all because I think when we say anything to do with traffic, pedestrian safety at Oakland or Route 9, it is going to be... Unanimous. I don't think anybody's going to say let's not do that. So this is sort of the next piece. This is something we would try to do.

I would say primary access to and primary egress from.

Ingress and egress.

Ingress and egress to and from the MassBay campus. Okay, new I?

New I. That the development be subject to the town's wetlands protection bylaw and water supply protection overlay district. both would apply to the lot now if it weren't under this program.

Okay.

that the town develop, that the development comply with the town's inclusionary zoning bylaw. that the town enter into a development agreement with the developer with binding conditions on the use slash reuse of the property.

Megan, does that language cover everything you might anticipate being a development agreement? The use of the property?

Yeah, the only other thing I was contemplating is oftentimes a lot of our development agreements also discuss the construction management you know so whether we want to include I mean that's getting into Mnuchia a bit but so it's not just the use but it's you know during times of construction site plan also has that jurisdiction but we have we've added binding conditions in the past on those. We've done that in site plan. Yeah. Yeah, that would be part of the actual development. So I mean, it's a fine point, it's not one. I mean, I think the main components of the development agreement are always

The timing, how it's going to look, what the mitigation is going to be, obviously construction management, and then whatever the longer term management access could be, such as, you know, and a new bus stop or other secondary public transportation points or what have you. So you think this is... I think it's fine because we also don't want to...

We don't want to negotiate the development agreement on town meeting floor. Exactly.

But those are the things we would look for. I just wanted to make sure it was broad enough for a planner's perspective.

But to that point, so I don't think many people are going to understand, me included, what the use and reuse of the property means. from a technical perspective. And I don't feel like we should box ourselves in on what could and could not be in the agreement. Why not just say the town entered a development agreement with the developer with binding conditions or a binding development agreement with the developer?

Or you can just say with binding conditions including.

You could say including conditions.

Well, if we just say binding conditions, then it means anything we want to include in there.

Well, I also think, correct me if I'm wrong, but so under the terms of the disposition of the land, they're going to also have binding conditions in terms of the use and reuse of the property. So, yeah, I agree with Kenny. Maybe you just end it with developed binding conditions.

You don't want the state to say, sure, we'll agree that you can have a development agreement with respect to that issue only.

That's what I was worried about.

Last but not least, that the town preserves all available legal rights and options.

Can I just go back up for a sec to the new one that we added, go down? Yeah, H, that the town provides. We went to the trouble of 40 Oakland Street in F. Is there an address for the main campus? So that it's clear.

It is 50. 50 Oakland. It's 50. So we can add that.

Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't take out Mass Bay Campus, but if I don't know how it's an even number two.

Yeah.

So that actually I find confusing because you're entering 50 Oakland you're actually leaving Route 9 getting on Oakland and you have your primary access in

Yeah, can we just say Mass Bay, primary access to the campus?

To Mass Bay, I would put directly from Route 9. So you're not going on Oakland Street, you're going directly from Route 9 into the campus.

to the MassBay campus directly from Route 9.

Well the only thing there are you have the campus and you have the parking lot and it's an impossibility to get from the Route 9 to the parking lot so it's almost by definition it has to be the east side.

But I think if we say directly, if we say from the campus directly from Route 9 and add avoiding Oakland Street to be clear.

If people don't want to put the address in, I don't have a problem with leaving it out. I just wondered about it.

I think what Kenny's saying is actually a good point. So directly from Route 9, avoiding Oakland Street, then it's blindly obvious.

Yeah, I would.

I don't think you need that, though.

If you say directly from Route 9, it by necessity avoids Oakland Street.

Yeah, it almost makes the avoiding sound wimpy.

Yeah.

I wouldn't want that.

That we are definitely not.

Corey, just a minor drafting thing. I'd say primary ingress and egress to and from.

Right. MassBay campus. Don't you like editing by committee, Corey?

Shouldn't it be primary ingress, too? I am a camel. Connecticut College camels, horse built by committee.

So this is automotive ingress and egress. Yes. Walker. Yes.

Okay. Can I suggest one addition? Sure. I suggest we add that environmental and climate-related impact be addressed.

What does that mean?

Well under the regulations it specifically states if the community has adopted the opt-in code that it would be respected. So it's already sort of hardwired? Yeah.

It's in the regs. Is it included already in the list, Megan?

No, it's not included in our list. It's included in the regulations under the statutory provisions that if you've adopted the, because that was actually something they specifically addressed because it was a real question if you could override and other local provisions, that was the first thing that came to mind. So we've adopted the opt-in stretch code. Would this project not have to comply? And so the state did address that in the regulations, that if in fact the community has adopted the opt-in stretch code, that that would be the applicable building code provisions for which they would have to construct.

Just one last question, Tom. Do we need the typical catch-all at the end that says, or to take any other action thereto? I noticed it was gone.

So that's warrant article catch-all, not motion.

All right.

Okay, we good with motion two? All right, motion three?

Motion three, that the town that town meeting advises select board to pursue litigation against the Commonwealth on any legal issues available for the town to challenge the disposition and development of the property located at 40 Oakland Street. Yeah, thank you. So this is the

We don't want to negotiate.

Yeah. We're done talking.

So isn't it implied that if we fail in Motion 2 to secure the elements of... palatable arrangement that we've reserved our right to pursue litigation. I don't find it helpful to have motion three because I think it's implied in motion two.

It's different.

There may be some people who don't want us to negotiate, who just want to litigate. And I think we need to offer town meeting an opportunity to opine on that.

I agree with that. I think you want an affirmative vote, not an implied suggestion. I think the way this is structured, it walks clearly through three very different options. And I think you have to go through to the third option seeking an affirmative vote.

So how are we going to present motion three and the rationale for pursuing litigation when we can't talk about any of the information that would support litigation?

So imagine you get a negative vote on motion two. A negative vote might mean that people are in favor of negotiating, they just don't like how the conditions came out, so they might vote against them. We don't know how they're going to act, because remember, there's... Are we now at 10 different provisions that they're acting on? I think motion three just, you know, we will have gathered information in motion one and motion two, but motion three just puts it squarely before the meeting. Do you want us to fire up the litigation machine now? And it gives those people who say, yes, I'm not negotiating. I want to fight. It gives those people an opportunity to make that case.

And we have heard that position.

So I think Beth's concern is extremely warranted because when this goes up, The first question somebody should ask is, what's the likelihood of success? And our answer is going to be, can't tell you. I don't worry about that. I worry about any discussion about litigation on the floor.

That may be the first question people should ask. I don't think that the people who support litigation are going to ask that. and I think this gives us a sense of whether people want to litigate and it's non-binding.

Well if we're going to have this I think it needs to say this can't be the only question sitting there because I don't want to look at this in three months and say look town meeting voted not to litigate this because standing alone You're going to read this and say, yes, no. Town meeting advised select board to pursue litigation on any legal issues available to challenge the disposition of development of property located at 40 Oakland Street. So I think my view is pretty well known. I would litigate this in a second, but it absolutely is like my last choice of what to do. So if I'm given that, I'm going to vote no on that because I don't want somebody to say, Look, 20 people at town meeting voted yes to litigate and 220 said no. We're going to be looking at a very strange vote.

So if you're going to do that, I think we need to do it in a way that qualifies it essentially If you can't negotiate a deal, then go to that. I think if you take a straw poll and say to anybody, here are your options. Accept the offer. Two, negotiate. And if you don't get a reasonable solution, litigate it. Or three, scrap the rest of it. Let's just head to court. Court and litigate. That's exactly the choice. That's like saying I could build Disney World there. It is a choice, but it's not a real choice. Nobody wants to litigate this thing. I don't think that's true.

I don't agree with that at all.

There's so many people I cannot fathom somebody wants to walk in and say, Let's go sue the state and spend a million dollars.

We have to give people the opportunity to weigh in on that.

You can say to proceed directly to litigation. As your first course of action.

Should it say that town meeting advised the select board to reject the negotiation route and go directly to litigation? is that what we're talking about?

Not to negotiate but instead proceed directly to litigation.

If it's said to proceed directly to litigation, I think it captures an important point that you've actually, that I hear in the point you're making, which is it isn't contradictory to 3, which is seeking an appropriation. And I think that's important because negotiations may fail.

Well, but it's implicit. I mean, you always have a right if you're negotiating to say we're calling off the negotiations, we're gonna go to litigation. That's implicit in motion two. But there may be some people who don't want to negotiate and who want to proceed directly to litigation. And I think we need to offer them an opportunity to weigh in on that. and if there are only 20 people that tells us something too.

but as long as we make crystal clear that a no vote on this does not preclude us from litigating if we don't come to a deal

and I think that's how you frame it. That's how you frame it. You make sure that that's... That's right. As long as that's crystal clear.

So to make it crystal clearer should we not call that L, just say and further that the town preserves all available rights. So it's not a A to L, it's A to K and further that we preserve our rights.

That's okay. That was kind of what I was getting to with the take any other action.

Take it away. It's not a vote. We're not giving anything up.

It's not an item.

Correct. Yeah, yeah. Better said.

Okay, any other comments on the motions? Okay, motion three, article three.

Article three, motion one is that the town transfer the sum of $900,000 for legal services said some to be taken from certified free cash and added to the shared services slash law that we appropriated under motion two of article eight at the annual.

which is for FY27.

Right, and that said funds to be used only for matters related to 40 Oakland Street.

Could we go back for one second? The last one on three, motion three. If motion 2 prevails, do we vote on motion 3? Because on motion 1, we don't vote on motion 2 if motion 1 prevails. Do we vote on motion 3 if motion 2 prevails? I'm just asking.

Do we want to give people an opportunity to weigh in?

So we had that language between motion one and motion two. Negative means we go to motion two. I think we're going to motion three regardless. to give that part of the population the opportunity to express that interest.

So if you get, if we get 51% on motion one, we're not gonna ask how many people wanna negotiate. We're just gonna go to how many people wanna sue. Is that right? I just want to be clear on how this is going to work. I think we might as well vote on all three motions. How many people want to take the deal?

Can you scroll back up to motion one? So right now, under Motion 1, it says if the town meeting votes Motion 1 in the negative, we move on to Motion 2. If town meeting votes Motion 1 in the affirmative, we go to Motion 3.

Because it's accept or negotiate. How do you say, oh, I accept it, but I also want to negotiate it. It's like they're contradicting. or Negotiate. That's a pretty, you know.

Well then you're going to get, you're going to get the whole pie chart. You're going to get 51% say take the deal. 48% negotiate, 2% or I think I did the math wrong, 3%, 1% say sue. You get the full pie. And it's all advisory. and it's all advisory but otherwise you're getting only two of the three possible answers. It doesn't make any sense to me.

No, because they conflict.

Yeah, it's conflicting.

Motion one and motion two are completely different. but motion three is completely different.

In a different way.

Yeah.

Why wouldn't we just say if town meeting votes motion one in the, almost flip it, it's gotta be if it's voted, if motion one passes, everybody go home.

No, I think it's important to give a voice to the people. We're trying to respect... the entire spectrum of opinion in town and there is absolutely a group of people who feel we ought to litigate. I think they have a right to vote. as part of Town Meeting.

But Tom, they're a group of people who absolutely want to negotiate. They don't like the current framework. They're not ready to sue. That's right.

They don't get to vote. No, they will have seen the entire warrant, the articles and the motions and they'll know what's coming. They'll know what their vote means on motion one and they'll go to motion two.

I also think it's important how we frame it.

Yeah, exactly.

We have to alert them. It's clear to town meeting that if you pass motion one, then we're not gonna discuss motion two, we're gonna go straight to motion three. It's up to them to decide and if you make it clear, it's their decision.

Okay, so if we make it clear that motion one means no real negotiation, that's what motion one is. Motion two, real negotiation. Motion three, pull up our tent and go to the court.

Motion 1 essentially is taking the letter that we received from the Commonwealth, writing accepted on it, signing it, and sending back. Right.

The logic seems broken to me, though. If that happens... were saying, OK, take it. But then we're going to give a voice to the, forget everything, litigation crowd. But we're not going to give a voice to the people who are somewhere in the middle and say, tell us what you think.

We're not giving only five minutes to deliberation on this motion and calling for a vote. . First of all, there has to be at least 30 minutes before there's a motion to call the vote. And I think negotiation can go on far longer. The debate under Motion 1 will tell us how much how strong a feeling is that we really need to go to motion two.

So intuitively now that we've talked through this and I better understand the intent of motion one It feels, Tom, to your point, we have one main motion. It has A, B, and C. And we present the three options. Part 1, press button 1 if you would like to take the offer from the state as presented. Press button two if you would like to negotiate along these lines and press button three if you're done and you just think we should sue. I mean to me it seems now like one main motion. It seems like kind of a crazy, it's gonna be kind of a squirrely conversation but I feel like now we have three choices, three buttons and you pick your button and then we'll know how the world is broken up.

But we still need to present and explain the three options. What do you think?

I have no problem with it. This is a very unusual town meeting. This is exactly what we want. from town meeting is we want the deliberation. And Mark is already thinking that he's not going to allow a motion to call the question. until after there has been opportunity to present and deliberate in general And so I think we don't want it confusing. Anything less than what you described is confusing and not helpful to us.

So to the motion, too, though. What you said, Beth, was vote on one A, B, or C, right? Pick. If you vote, if people vote B... I would expect that that motion will be split into sub motions so that we have a sense of what actually matters.

I don't think you want that.

You might not want it, but if we want...

I think we're going to have a lot of amendments on B or two or whatever it's called now I think this one about what you want to advise the select board related to these items that's going to be a rich conversation and we're going to have we could have amendments in this list of A to, is it K now? A to L? However many there are. That could get amended, so it's a different bundle of items. so Kenny I originally imagined this that we would talk about each one and kind of up or down it but the more I've been sitting here listening to us it's kind of like this is the package you can move to take that out like I don't care about water supply protection so that can someone can move to remove it from the list Updown.

And we can end up with a different list, but then we're going to vote one, two, or three.

and we have a sense of what's important to the town well just say hypothetically nobody does that and we're lists we're left with a list of whatever 13 items that are all in our mind gonna have equal weight because nobody voted. We're gonna have a discussion that happens that we're gonna have our subjective recollection of what the discussion was and we're gonna have no guidance. and I thought the whole purpose of this meeting was to get guidance on, I mean, we can keep talking about this like, litigation is going to be voted yes and that people are going to say yes except that I mean we I think we all are pretty clear that it's going to be option two which is negotiate but we're going to walk out we have the potential to walk out of that meeting with no Clue, what people actually want.

I don't think that's true. And it's not a subjective recollection. We have a transcript of town meeting.

We can go... A certain number of people will stand up and talk. 240 people will not voice their opinion. Whereas if they vote, we're going to know what their opinion is.

So I hear what Kenny's saying. If motion two prevails, let's say 80%, pick motion two. there is no hierarchy between A to K about what we're trying to derive. So I would bet right now if we all took a straw poll on what we thought was gonna happen, we think we're gonna get Go, try to strike the best deal, and if all else fails, pursue litigation. And so the point of this discussion is, what are we trying to strike the best deal about? We may have comments here and there about A to K, but we may have no better sense about Do people really care about direct access off of Route 9 or is it just improving transportation on Oakland Street? Do people really care?

about wetlands and water supply, or do they really care about something that's up there higher on the list?

If you ask people to vote on it, I think they'd say they're all important. The only way you're going to get helpful information is if you ask them to rank them. to rank them. And I don't think that's something that we're proposing, but...

I think Paul's point was exactly right. You can't take a vote, but you could hear voices.

and I'll be honest with you that there are some of these that are important no matter what the discussion of town meeting is. I don't expect town meeting to know about the town wetlands protection bylaw and the water supply protection overlay district. But I can tell you, as I have been saying meeting after meeting, we have to look out for water displacement and the way water travels down slope towards Abbott Road. So we know that's critical. I don't really care what town meeting says about that. particular issue, we have an obligation to the neighborhoods not to fill their basements.

Let me propose something. So I think that as we develop this, so the presentation is now going to be all three, assuming this this plan goes forward so we're going to stand up and say okay we're going to present to you three choices and you're going to vote for one Choice one is accept what the Commonwealth offered. Here's what the Commonwealth offered. If you want us to go strike a deal, we can strike this deal in a week. Choice three is litigate. No more discussion. Let's go right to the litigation. Let's stop this thing in its tracks now. We're going to spend most of our time explaining to you number two. And Mark can take the A through L and say, okay, we're looking at A now. I want... comments on A. So people can come to the mic and they can express here's why I think A is important or here's why I don't think A is important but it's feedback for you so that we're not you know I don't think

We want actual numbers on each one. Let's take a separate vote on A through L. We don't want that, but we do want to understand the feedback that town meeting has for us. So it's an opportunity on A through L to receive comment. but the vote will be on the whole package.

The other thing that these do is tells town meeting all the things that we think and we think we heard are important to them. I mean that's why they're all in there and we would want to talk to the Commonwealth about all of them.

I mean and perhaps we can say why we don't want to split the questions and so the time meeting understands that we want a holistic vote on it and and here's the reasons why it's part of our strategy right so I think it is probable

that we could get an amendment that says that the development be located only on the hardscape parking spot. that the development consist of no more than X number of units. And those would be motions to amend. I think it's... not outside the stretch of imagination that this list town meeting will be able to look at these things and say you know what I want to give you very specific direction on what I care about in negotiation. And they could modify these things.

That's what I think. . . . . . there's a trade-off between massing and size and land area. Where do you want us to land? You can't have a smaller land area and not a taller building. I'm just saying it could happen. I'm just saying that's what we have to explain. That's fine.

That's a useful conversation.

Yeah, very useful. But people need to understand that if you want that, you have to give on something else.

right so I hope that you know if we can talk to the moderator there's a motion to amend we get to present to see here's the implications of that we had we've considered that and here's what we think about that right but there could be a motion to amend that says

I would like the development only on the hardscape and no more than 20 units. Could be a motion. So that acknowledges the trade-off and they can make that motion and it could get voted.

Right, but I think it's our job to see this.

I'm just speaking to Kenny's point. That's where we're going. We want to hear what people think.

We're going to hear the voices of the people who decide to stand up and speak. I don't know what the statistics are, but if we had four nights of town meeting, We had how many members there at town meeting collectively? Call it 700 or so. How many of the 700 people, I'm adding each night obviously, that number of people, how many people stood up and spoke?

But this is their opportunity. If they want to speak, they have to speak.

Even if 70 people stood up and spoke over the course, that's 10% of the town meeting population. And we're not going to know.

Well, I think there's a couple ways.

That's their responsibility. Are we going to limit this to one night?

Yes. Hold on a second.

Do the math there. We're going to give three minutes. There's a hundred, how many, so that's 240 minutes. That would limit it to 80 people. So the most, if we start the second we walk in, You're going to have 80 people speak, right, out of 240. So that's one third of the population.

Not necessarily. Plus neighbors. The moderator has discretion over controlling speaking time. We have to do this in time to send in comments by May 13th.

and that's fine and I don't think that's wrong but I think the only way we're going to have any actionable intelligence is if we have a sense from a ranking perspective of what matters to people. And I don't think we're going to get that from just listening to a discussion.

But I think the moderator can see, you know, I've heard this point a few times, those who agree with the CI or CEA or raise your hands. I think there's tools we can use that will give us a sense.

And every town meeting member there is gonna vote. So that'll give us direction too.

So we could do a survey at the end and give it to people and have them drop it in the box.

We need definitive information at the end of the night. We have to have enough information to respond to the state by May 13th. Kenny said it. We don't want to waive any opportunity to make comments about the disposition or the use of the land.

agree with you 100%. And that's why I think we need actual information. Because we could sit here two days later, and Beth could have one recollection of what was said. Tom could have another. I could have another. We're going to rely on a transcript that's going to have to be pushed out very fast, and then we're going to have to synthesize that information, whereas we could actually have that information.

Well, that's right. We have other people there to take notes. We'll take notes. We'll have a transcript. We'll have a video. And we know We've already commented on the statute. We've already commented on the regs. We have a lot of the building blocks of what we might want to say to the state. It's a non-binding vote. It's an advisory vote. This is the best we can do. We're trying to offer everybody, all town meeting members and all residents an opportunity to weigh in. and we hope they take us up on that.

That's their opportunity. Is any survey result public information? Are we basically handing over what we said we didn't want to do?

That's why I think Paul's idea was a good idea. Have a voice vote on each of these things.

Then you're going back to three votes.

I'm going to the point of the purpose of this town meeting is to inform us on the direction to take. And I think the only way to do that is to actually have people tell us what that is. Not a subset of the town meeting, but all of the town meeting members and get the sense of what really matters. Because other than that, We are going to get second guessed as well that what did we hear? Because we're going to all hear different things in short order. We're not going to have a month to synthesize this information.

If you go back to the town meeting where Joe Hassel's two Rios came up, Town Meeting's not shy. An issue like that between resident non-town meeting members and town meeting members made their opinion clear. If there is a lack of speakers, a lack of participation that's sending a message. it town meeting gets caught you know when I think back to the first night that the issue of of school air conditioning came up The speakers were passionate, the people who got up and spoke about that. The tone, the numbers. whether an issue catches on. I don't have a problem with the natural flow of information at town meeting.

and I don't need a transcript to have a pretty clear memory of what the discussion was for our purposes in the non-binding environment.

So are we imagining that in motion two, Mark is going to go through A to K and invite comments on A, B, C, D? each of those items in which case a quick how many people support what we're hearing that this is you know kind of where that they're aligned with are we is that what you were more imagining Kenny I'm just trying to more imagining after each one people state their opinion of what really matters to them

So. They can do that without going through each one. That's the point of having the discussion on motion two.

It's open to any comments. If they start talking about density, for example, and 80 town meeting members want to stand up and speak about it, and it's 11.30 at night and we have not gotten to C through H, K, whatever it is, then what?

So there's techniques that the moderator can use in that situation because oftentimes you only have so many opinions, there's only so much to say on each one. so if you start hearing the same opinion two or three times you can say okay I'm hearing this repeatedly how many other people would like to acknowledged support for this opinion. Show of hands or a voice vote. Okay, we've got a sense. That's what we're looking at out there. There's ways to... Because, I mean, this is a three-article... one night meeting for us the great majority of towns do their annual town meeting in one night so they know how there's ways to keep the conversation moving gather the information you need and still act in a timely manner

the other thing arguably is you don't we don't in this instance obviously we want a lot of feedback but you don't typically go through each motion on a line-by-line basis right and so you're gonna take general comment. The other thing is, depending upon the repetitive nature, which arguably that's what we've heard, repetitive nature in terms of specific comments, which arguably I would say you've captured in these motions. all of them including just do litigation that they'll be nuanced and exactly what Tom said you know it's also you're going to hear Mark say don't repeat if we've already heard the comment if he gets to that point, I think that's what he will intend to do. And we're gonna meet with him to try and understand what his ground rules may be. And so I think, raising those concerns early about how do we not get sort of into that pattern.

We can start thinking about that now. And the other thing is just I've been thinking about it in terms of the amendment is whether an amendment is necessary because these are advisories. So you're not binding the board. And so I think stating specifically, well, I only want 20 units total, four units on the five acres or what have you, to your point to that argument, Beth. I don't think it would necessitate an amendment because because it's a non-binding component where if it were more binding in terms of what I don't think town meeting, and maybe Mark lays that out, I don't want to say wasting, that's not the right word, but spending time on an emotion that is not going to be binding isn't going to best serve Tom either.

Well, and if somebody stands up and says I only want this, Mark can also say how many people share that opinion and get a sense of the room. That's what we want.

And as was pointed out, in the comments to the board, if someone brings up a really specific motion and then it doesn't carry much support, they've taken our leverage away.

So the issue could be that motion two prevails. I think that's likely. And it prevails because of a mix of I want 20 units on five acres and I want more. closer to the 180 on whatever number of acres, but I want you to negotiate, right? and that's where exactly where we are right now.

I'm not sure it's avoidable.

I'm just calling it out.

I think we talked about that before. They're not going to come to consensus. They're not going to come to consensus. That's not the point, is to come to consensus, is to hear.

We're not looking for certainty, nor can they give us... We're not looking for town meeting to give us a definitive answer that we then go carry forward. we still have a responsibility as the select board to make a decision in the negotiations. and Town Meeting and their opinions will have been instructive and helpful in getting a sense through our legislative body of how people feel.

And it's...

but we're not gonna give important issues in the middle airtime necessarily. People may bring it up, but we don't know what they're gonna do. One option is litigate. .

As I understand it, you're going to press A, B, or C. So there's two. A, B, or C, two of those contain litigation options, B and C. One is just a quicker.

and Corey, how quick can you turn around a transcript? Three hours.

Yeah, once we have the Wellesley media, we can do, it's like two minutes.

Megan's quicker, three hours.

Okay, so I'm gonna just say, is it possible that someone could divide motion two into two A and two B, the small density Small footprint and a larger density, larger. Is that a viable thing that could happen under this?

So I'm just asking if it's legal. It's possible.

Okay, cool.

Okay.

Anything else? All right.

Well, we didn't do three yet.

Oh, sorry, thought we did three.

. Article 3. OK. So Article 3 is the transfer of $900,000 from free cash, and it's going to be added for FY27 to the shared services slash law budget. and those funds, that $900,000 is only to be used for matters related to 40 Oakland Street.

one thing I would say is I think we should say for legal and related services because if we need a parking study or something like we need any type of supporting evidence I don't think that's legal services

and Marjorie, under this, I'm assuming, I don't know who's gonna present this, but I think it would be important to talk about the fact that there's turn back, because at advisory they were adding up the $200,000 and the $900,000. So I think it would be important to explain to them because there's a new fiscal year coming that there's turn back.

Well, the $200,000 is for FY26. The $900,000 is for FY27. Whatever is not spent in either fiscal year will be turned back.

By law.

OK? We have people who want to comment now. We can take a few comments. Come on, Laura.

Thank you. One thing, I think it was mentioned before, but I think it's missing is that Parking and access to the trailhead has been provided for decades and decades. So I'm not sure that that's in there, but I think it will come up. So I'm just pointing that out in terms of that middle number two. Very, very important people that that has been there all this time. Sorry. And the other thing I just wanted to mention when we were talking about how the would manage things. If somewhere we were talking about going through A through K and he might ask it, remember that he generally, his way or her way or whatever is you've already spoken. So I could speak to A through K, every single one of them.

So I think that's just something we have to think about, because that won't work for him, I don't think. He cut me off, for example, and I've got a lot to say. And then the one other thing that I think is missing, and I think it could potentially go in where you say about the mass and design and blending in with the surrounding area. I think In all of that list, respecting habitat. So there's funny things that happen when you blend in with the surrounding area that might conflict with I mean this is an incredible habitat wildlife corridor for in wildlife corridor for us and I'm not just talking about the immediate area, the whole entire area, so when we talk about

you know things like design and surrounding areas that somehow I don't know if you can quickly edit something in there about the habitats. For instance, when they're working there for two years or something, not cutting off the corridors. So respecting the wildlife corridor or something like that. and that's all I have. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else? Paul?

Thank you. As somebody that drafts legal documents for a living, I have to tell you what torture it was sitting here not being able to speak up. every step of the way here. If I might just make one minor suggestion in the last line of the second motion. where we preserve all of our legal rights if we included including potential litigation. because it wasn't clear to me that we were including that as an option. It seemed like more of a sort of a bland phase without that. but thank you and I also do really want to compliment the board for what I think was just an incredibly intelligent conversation. So thank you to all of you.

Thank you very much, Paul. and Laura, I hope you'll make your comments at town meeting and you'll feel better when you make them.

I'm not even going to sit down, Raina McManus. I just have a question, did we land on voting all at once A, B, or C, or are we going to take a vote on motion one, motion two, motion three? I'm not sure how we ended up.

I think what we're gonna do is choose A, B, or C. Gives us more time to talk. Okay.

Ready for the motion?

On the one that says publicly available land, we could put including parking, publicly accessible including parking. We could just put that in now.

Well, it's going to be parking for housing. I think that's something we have to talk about.

Well, we're saying publicly accessible.

If it's publicly accessible, then you have to have a place to park because there's not a lot of parking on Centennial.

So without presupposing anything, the Affordable Homes Act requires that the land be used for housing. So I'm not sure that on a developer's piece that they could give us municipal parking. I don't know that that, I think the conveyance might likely be restricted. If we receive a conservation restriction on a parcel, that might be something we can do on our own parcel, but I think it'll be for us to figure out, not so much for the developer to figure out.

There was a second comment on the motion Paul's comment. Do you want to entertain change in adding that last including litigation?

Oh, reserving all rights including litigation?

everybody okay with that okay that's it straight in front of them might as well mm-hmm so I'm going to move to approve the motion language as displayed on the screen and as amended second

All in favor? Aye. Okay, great job everybody. That was a really good conversation. Thank you for all of your input. Thank you for our visitors for your comments and input. Okay. Well, the next item is a chair's report. And I'm sure you understand we've all been working on the same thing. So I don't have much of a chair's report, but you may want to. take a look at the April 14th school committee meeting where they discuss the new FutureThink demographic report.

Can I interrupt? Yes. So on behalf of the Wellesley Square Merchants Association and our local businesses, I just want to alert the town that Wellesley in Bloom is kicking off this upcoming Saturday. May 2nd, 2026. It's a town-wide celebration of spring, featuring floral fun, pop-up experiences, creative collaborations throughout the town's shopping areas. This is a second annual event. Our merchants invite you to stroll around town, enjoy beautiful artwork, flowers, creativity, local charm, food trucks. there'll be art and pop-up experiences and there'll be free parking at all two hour meters courtesy of the select board on May 2nd so please please please shop and dine local and it goes on for a full week through, actually it goes till May 11th, so it goes beyond a week.

And Valenti's worked with the merchants to prepare, I think it's 20 big flower flowers buckets that are going to be along Central Street, some on Linden Street to spruce up and bring the spring in bloom to life.

Thank you very much. Okay, I'd like to ask if we could do the minutes next week.

I was going to ask the same thing.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Tom. And we're adjourned. We'll meet back here next Tuesday, the 5th.

.

.