Executive Summary
The Wellesley Select Board met on May 12, 2026, to finalize a formal response to the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAM) regarding the surplus land designation of 40 Oakland Street. Following significant public input from the previous night's Town Meeting, the Board discussed incorporating specific conditions into the letter, including concerns over housing density, traffic mitigation at Route 9 and Oakland Street, and the preservation of open space through conservation restrictions. The Board ultimately voted to authorize the Chair to finalize the letter, ensuring it reflects the community's priorities and reserves the town's legal rights while seeking to influence the state's forthcoming Request for Proposals (RFP).
Meeting Information
- Date: May 12, 2026
- Governing Body: Select Board
- Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
- Location: Giuliani Room, Town Hall
- Attendees:
- Marjorie Freiman, Chair
- Tom Ulfelder, Vice Chair
- Colette Aufranc, Secretary
- Kenny Largess, Select Board Member
- Beth Sullivan Woods, Select Board Member
- Meghan Jop, Executive Director
- Corey Testa, Assistant Executive Director
- Eric Russell, Town Counsel
Citizen Speak
No residents came forward to speak during the initial Citizen Speak portion of the meeting.
Discussion and Vote: Letter to DCAM Regarding 40 Oakland Street
The Board discussed the finalization of a letter to the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAM) regarding the official designation of land at 40 Oakland Street as surplus. The deadline for the town's official comment is May 13, 2026.
Key Discussion Points:
- Incorporation of Town Meeting Input: The Board debated whether to include all 11 conditions from 'Motion B' passed at the previous night's Town Meeting.
- Density and Aggregation: Members expressed concern over the state's density expectations of 180 units. They argued that using the entire 40-acre parcel as a density multiplier for a buildable area of approximately 5 acres (specifically the 4.94-acre parking lot) was inappropriate.
- Traffic Mitigation: The Board emphasized that traffic and pedestrian safety at Route 9 and Oakland Street must be addressed. Tom Ulfelder argued for a standalone paragraph to highlight that the project would be 'untenable' without resolving MassBay parking and egress issues.
- Conservation Restrictions: The Board sought to specify that any conservation restriction should be granted to the Town at no cost and remain open to the public for passive recreation in perpetuity.
- Legal Strategy: Town Counsel Eric Russell noted the letter serves three purposes: stating community concerns, reserving the town's rights to pursue other avenues (including litigation), and specifying desired elements for the RFP.
Official Action:
- Motion: To authorize the Chair of the Board to finalize the letter to the Commissioner of DCAM and the Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), working with the Executive Director, Town Counsel, and Special Counsel Nick Shapiro to incorporate the comments discussed.
- Vote Outcome: The motion passed unanimously (5-0-0).
Public Comment Summary
Several residents provided comments regarding the 40 Oakland Street project:
- Doug Youngin (162 Oakland Street): Expressed concern regarding the lack of prioritization in the town's negotiating points. He stated, "I think that the points aren't anchored, they're not prioritized, and there's no consensus."
- Raina McManus (2 Mulherrin Lane): Emphasized that the Town Meeting results showed clear opposition to high density. She remarked, "180 units is far, far too dense for this area, the forest, the neighborhood, and our town."
- Jessica Graham (Precinct D, 21 Grantland Road): Questioned if the Board would negotiate to have the land designated as Article 97 land rather than surplus to naturally limit density.
- Leslie Hanrahan (5 Putney Road): Provided a statistical breakdown of the Town Meeting vote, noting that 94% of members voted against the state's current offer and 83% voted to appropriate funds for potential litigation.