Wellesley Boards debrief & debrief on MassBay redevelopment plans

The Wellesley Select Board and Planning Board separately debriefed this week on recent meetings regarding state and MassBay Community College plans to sell property on Oakland Street to a housing developer to help fund college upgrades, including new cybersecurity and recreational facilities.

Select Board debriefs

The Select Board early during its Sept. 30 meeting (see Wellesley Media recording) started an hour-long discussion following a forum held at MassBay the previous week that was attended by more than 100 people, roughly a couple dozen of whom asked questions or shared feedback (see “MassBay forum sparks calls to balance housing, environmental needs”). Board members did not speak publicly during that forum though did weigh in earlier in September at a joint Select Board-Planning Board meeting with MassBay and other state officials.

Select Board Chair Marjorie Freiman began her remarks by recapping the Sept. 25 meeting, which included neighbor and other resident concerns as well as support for MassBay and new housing development. Freiman made clear from the start that “The town cannot prevent all development. No development is not an option… [the state agencies] want to know what we want to see on the parcel. We have the opportunity to participate productively and constructively if we work together.” Observers shouldn’t assume that Wellesley’s situation is similar to those in other communities where the state’s Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance have set their sights.

Questions remain about whether age-restricted housing might be an option, though one thing that is clear is that forested land owned by the state and adjacent to Centennial Reservation is not owned by the town even if it has been used that way for years. “This could be the next best opportunity that the town has to preserve a large portion of the undeveloped part of that land,” she said. Addressing concerns that new development could lead to school overcrowding, she said the number of students from The Nines development on that side of town has not been as large as was projected.

“If the town continues to repeat only what we don’t want, we risk the state coming back and presenting a proposal that is not what we do want,” Freiman said. “So it’s incumbent for us to take this opportunity, and I see it as an opportunity, to make it the best it can possibly be.” She added that the town can take steps to mitigate the impact of any development by making changes to the roadways as well.

In addition, Wellesley could host a “town-wide interactive visioning session” to explore the realities of the area and the possibilities for it, Freiman said. Executive Director Meghan Jop said Wellesley has had success with this practice in other parts of town, such as the North 40 and Linden Square

Board member Beth Sullivan Woods said Wellesley has an opportunity to lead in ensuring this development works out well for the town—both neighbors and others—and the state. She said development under the state’s Affordable Homes Act is “fundamentally different” than past projects, such as 40Bs, where profit was such a driving factor. She also said at this point the process is more open-ended than the town is used to, and Wellesley could benefit by getting its desires in front of the state before it sets rules in stone. Woods said the way that the state agencies have approached the town shows a desire to partner. “We can be a good case study or we can be a bad case study… that is another opportunity,” she said.

Under the Affordable Homes Act housing can be built by right with a minimum of 4 units per acre, so that could translate into 180 or more units based on the acreage being discussed. Colette Aufranc said it’s important to understand town and state rights related to development, noting that municipalities are allowed to impose reasonable regulations and that the state has signaled a willingness to negotiate (see more on the state’s emerging development proposal on the town website). Aufranc encouraged the idea of a visioning plan that could address issues such as the type of housing that might work best there, and the impacts that various housing types might have on everything from traffic to schools.

Board member Kenny Largess said that based on community feedback heard at the forum and through other means, that there is “significant opposition in the community to this project.” Having said that, he noted that there are many perspectives on the possible development, and that the board is listening as it seeks to act in the town’s best interests. He echoed sentiments of fellow board members that the town needs to act quickly, since it won’t control the timeline. Largess also said this development, alongside the many others in the works across town, make Wellesley’s need to put together a master plan more urgent.

Tom Ulfelder rounded out Select Board comments by saying he was supportive of much of what Freiman started off with, though added a few points. One was that MassBay will be looking to raise a certain amount of money to help pay for its campus building project, so “it’s in the state’s best interest to have the greatest amount of square footage built over there because that’s what’s going to get sold and that’s what’s going to finance the project.” Ulfelder also said it’s important to keep asking the state questions about its priorities, which include not just housing, but open space and sustainability. Ulfelder said it’s important for residents to hear their concerns and priorities reflected in the board’s conversations with the state, but also “to be truthful with you about where we have power and where we don’t.”

A handful of residents shared feedback at the meeting, with questions raised about the challenges of developing on property next to protected land and the possible benefits of getting outside counsel to help the town play strong defense even as it works with the state and school.

Planning Board debriefs

The Planning Board spent more than an hour during its Sept. 29 meeting reviewing the earlier joint meeting with the Select Board, as well as the MassBay forum, which some Planning Department and Board members attended.

Chair Marc Charney said up front that this project would be unique in that, for one thing, it doesn’t require a zoning change. The Planning Board’s role in this case is more advisory in nature, he confirmed with town counsel, and the Select Board will be the body negotiating with the state on what will be in the request for proposal to developers (the state will then choose the developer). The Planning Board will do whatever it can to be involved in the process, and plans to have the topic on its regular meeting agendas. DCAMM has indicated an interest in coming to a future Planning Board meeting, he said.

Board member Patty Mallett said it seemed as though the state is willing to work with the town, but wondered what that really means.

Jim Roberti repeated his frustration with the Select Board’s initial reaction to the state’s proposal, and said negotiating with the state in this case has to be akin to how a young adult might bargain with their parents to take the car out on a Friday night. He’d like to see the Select Board grant the Planning Board a role in negotiations. Roberti confronted fellow Planning Board members while they spoke before leaving the meeting.

The board’s Tom Taylor felt “pleasantly surprised” about the state’s willingness to work with the town on conservation protection, and pondered whether the state might be willing to sell less than 45 acres. Kathleen Woodward said she’d like to see an information session that might more clearly lay out what the state can do, and hopes that “the town makes the most of the good will that I sensed that evening (of the joint board meeting) and at the second meeting as well…”

Next up: Another forum at MassBay on Oct. 8 that will have the same format as the Sept. 30 one.

Sign up for Swellesley’s free weekday email newsletter.