Wellesley Annual Town Meeting dissolves following lengthy RIO zoning amendment discussion

April 8, 2026

Wellesley Annual Town Meeting dissolved on Tuesday, April 7 after two thirds of the three-hour meeting was spent hashing out a proposed zoning amendment on a topic—Residential Incentive Overlays (RIOs)—that’s been much debated by the town’s legislative body over the past couple of years. The session also featured the first motion, under a separate Planning Board-sponsored article, to get shot down at this year’s Annual Town Meeting.

(See Wellesley Media recording to view the meeting and the Town Meeting scorecard to track voting)

It was clear ahead of Town Meeting that the motion under Article 32 to eliminate RIOs in Single Residence and a few other districts would likely spark one of the longest and most colorful discussions, and it didn’t disappoint. Because, you know, housing.

This was a motion that spurred local advocacy groups to rally their troops to hit up Town Meeting reps in support of eliminating RIOs not only in certain districts, but all of them via a possible amendment to the motion. RIOs allow for higher-density building than underlying zoning would permit.

Opposition to proposed uses of the RIO bylaw, which went on the books in 1998, came to a head in October, 2024, when a pair of proposed multifamily housing developments got shot down at Special Town Meeting. RIOs were also front and center at Annual Town Meeting last April because of a citizen petition that sought to return the RIO bylaw to its original state. As the proponent explained during presentations, the focus of RIOs would again be on allowing multi-unit residential development in commercial areas but not in single residence and general residence districts.

A diverse 16-member RIO Task Force was then formed by the Planning Board. The task force met more than a dozen times and made recommendations to the Planning Board, which voted 3-1 for the motion language under Article 32 presented to Town Meeting this week (the task force’s preferred approach was to nix RIOs altogether, though the Planning Board went with a less extreme approach with the intention to keep working on the topic). Earlier motion language was revised after the Select Board Board pushed back on a recommendation regarding the proposed addition of a development agreement requirement to the project approval section of the RIO bylaw.

Article 32 gets its hearing

You knew Article 32 was different when Moderator Mark Kaplan asked the Planning Board’s Tom Taylor to read the motion under it: Usually the motion language isn’t read in order to move Town Meeting along, making the assumption that members have already read the motions. But in this case, an amendment or more to the motion was anticipated, as was a point of order regarding the amendment, so Kaplan sought to get everything spelled out clearly. As Taylor read, Article 32 would allow RIOs in a few zoned districts, those defined as Commercial, Industrial, General Residence, and Educational.

Taylor followed the reading of the motion with a brief presentation on the motion, which he indicated had its roots in a citizen petition from last year’s Annual Town Meeting that sought to remove RIOs from all zoning districts other than commercial ones. The motion captured 61% of Town Meeting votes, but not enough to satisfy the two-thirds rule to pass. So it was clear this was a subject on which the town was divided, and could warrant further review and ideas.

The appointed Advisory Committee, which vets Town Meeting motions ahead of the big event, recommended unfavorable action, 0 to 11, with 1 recusal and 1 abstention on the motion under Article 32.  Committee members cited different reasons for their lack of support, including that the RIO Task Force and Planning Board could potentially come up with a better solution given more time.

Taylor said that the Planning Board’s position was that the motion under Article 32 was “an important first step—going farther or less far are inferior alternatives.”

But some opposed to Article 32’s motion language brought forth an amendment, presented by Kara Reinhardt Block, a RIO Task Force member and Town Meeting rep for Precinct D, situated in Lower Falls. She presented an amendment designed to remove RIOs from all districts, notwithstanding the four previously approved RIO projects, such as the Terrazza on Linden St. Reinhardt Block has spoken out in the past about the potential for limited changes to the RIO bylaw to increase the likelihood of multifamily housing developments in only certain sections of town, and she reiterated this point at this Town Meeting.

Town Meeting member John Lanza rose to make a point of order, arguing that the proposed amendment should not be allowed for “going beyond the four corners of the proposed warrant article…” The original motion language was specific, he said, whereas the proposed amendment “seeks to abolish” the RIO district town-wide and is “the language or repeal.”

Moderator Kaplan then issued a prepared statement in which he contended that Article 32 did indeed give Town Meeting members “clear warning that the scope of Section 3.2.B of the zoning bylaw might be brought up for consideration at this Annual Town Meeting…” Earlier discussions at the Planning Board and Advisory Committee considered the possibility that an expanded motion might be filed, Kaplan noted, as part of his explanation for denying the point of order and allowing the amendment to be presented.

Reinhardt Block, given the go-ahead to speak by Kaplan, started out by saying that “there are many reasons to pause the RIO and fix it, but first and foremost among them is that the RIO is broken, and we have widely acknowledged that as a town body…” RIOs simply aren’t needed, Reinhardt Block said, given many other ways to build 17.4 units per acre in town (such as under the MBTA Communities Law) and the new availability of more developable land as a result of a huge amount of commercial property going on the market (she later shared photos of new or planned multi-family housing developments across town).

She added that the resources required to see RIO projects through can take away from more strategic planning. Allowing a “broken tool” to be used in some parts of town and not others just isn’t fair, she argued. Reinhardt Block described the RIO bylaw as a “blunt” tool allowing too much density—”it’s 24 units per acre, or nothing.”

Reinhardt Block asked Town Meeting to consider the amendment as “not something that is anti-development, but something that promotes thoughtful planning and something that brings the whole town along.”

Four Advisory Committee were in favor of amending the original motion, while eight were opposed.

As for the Planning Board, Taylor addressed the topic of what really qualifies a high density, as he pointed to longstanding developments on Seaward Avenue and on Washington Street where Singh’s Cafe is located, that you might not really think of as having unacceptably high density even though both exceed the RIO maximum of 24 units per acre.

From there, members of Town Meeting, including a handful of RIO Task Force members, weighed in on the proposed amendment, both before it became the main motion and after.

Partway through the initial set of comments, Town Meeting member David Himmelberger provided some historical context about the RIO bylaw, noting that it arose in the late 1990s and at the time required a 2-acre minimum. The town didn’t pull it off the shelf until it sought to thwart a couple of sizable 40B projects on Linden Street and Weston Road, and amended the bylaw to be applicable for properties with minimum of 1 acre instead of 2, he said. At that time, a RIO could only be approved with a two-thirds vote at Town Meeting, but a change in state allow allowed approvals with just a 50% vote. “Our existing RIO bylaw was not carefully thought out. It was a reaction to the hostile 40B developments. It was a reasonable negotiation at the time but with the change in the law reducing it to 50%, it’s not what we voted for in 2019 and I think that’s something we should be mindful of when we consider the vote tonight,” he said.

Julie Bryan started things off by rising to oppose the amendment, which she said would go beyond pausing RIOs by permanently changing the bylaw. She also noted that RIOs provide Town Meeting with the rare opportunity to weigh in on housing development proposals. Member Jenn Fallon added that Town Meeting has in fact made its voice heard on recent RIO proposals, indicating that the current process and bylaw work. Another Town Meeting member, Mary Prosnitz (also a RIO Task Force member), argued against the amendment, and said its approval might even encourage developers to focus more on districts with higher by right density zoning.

Town Meeting member Ann-Mara Lanza also rose to oppose the amendment, citing the housing crisis in the state and arguing that Wellesley needs “more zoning tools, not less.” She said the Commonwealth and other organizations have calculated that Massachusetts is over 200,000 units short for what’s needed by the current population, which faces high costs for the units that are on the market, and led to an exodus of young people from the state. “So what does this have to do with Wellesley? As residents of Massachusetts we have a role to play in alleviating this crisis, and we will feel its economic impact if we do nothing…,” she said.

Among those supporting the amendment were Joan Minklei, a Town Meeting and RIO Task Force member, who pointed to the extensive research and discussions that Task Force members conducted. Fellow Town Meeting and RIO Task Force member Paul Criswell also supported the amendment, stating that with the town having met its 40B threshold for affordable housing, “the RIO bylaw is a tool whose time has passed and we no longer need it…” He cited the rule’s lack of protection for neighbors, and said the town needs to figure out how to “to affirm its commitment to affordable housing.” Odessa Sanchez said “keeping RIO in limited zones doesn’t increase housing, it distorts where and how it gets built…”

Leigh Thomas said she ran for and secured a seat on Town Meeting after a RIO project was proposed next to her family’s home in Lower Falls that Thomas said she and neighbors felt was too dense for the location. While the zoning map changes for that project were shot down at Special Town Meeting in 2024, she and neighbors found the RIO process “opaque, confusing, and protracted.” Thomas encouraged fellow Town Meeting members to support the amendment to Article 32.

A motion to move the question regarding the amendment was made more than a half hour after Town Meeting debate began, and the body did indeed vote to do so. Advisory essentially stuck with its take on the original motion (4 in support of the amended motion, and 7 against).

After additional Town Meeting member comments for and against the motion, Town Meeting voted by more than a two-thirds margin, 148-52, in favor of the motion under Article 32, as amended.

Comprehensive plan funding a no-go for now

Town Meeting voted 110-89 against transferring $400k from free cash to fund a new Comprehensive Plan to succeed the Unified Plan conducted in 2019. That followed a mixed reaction from the Advisory Committee, which recommended favorable action by an 8-4 count, with one abstention, regarding the request by the Planning Board under Article 21.

The Planning Board’s Ed Chazen explained that a Comprehensive Plan would provide a policy framework to guide the community’s strategy over the next 10 years for land use, transportation and circulation, housing, economic development, natural resources and infrastructure. For those who pay attention to town board and committee doings, the Unified Plan has been cited many times over the years to try to help make or break arguments about this or that. Having a plan can help a community gain access to state grants.

For Wellesley, the plan would address the needs of a community with changing demographics, including fewer school-age children and more older adults even as the town has spent well over $100m in recent years on new elementary schools. Hovering over all of this are the town’s housing challenges, as documented in another recent town-funded plan, the Strategic Housing Plan.

The town’s strategy would be to hire a consultant to work with the community to craft the Comprehensive Plan. The idea would be to get requests for proposals going soon, and be ready to get going on a plan in the fall after the town hires a new planning director, as its previous one left at the end of 2025. The end goal would be to deliver a Comprehensive Plan to Annual Town Meeting in 2028.

The timing of the plan funding was a concern for some Advisory Committee members, and also an issue raised on the Town Meeting floor. Michael Tobin said the plan does sound like something Wellesley should have, but questioned the urgency of it. He asked for examples of how the Unified Plan has actually been used, and the Planning Board’s Taylor shared that it helped guide the town to reaching the state threshold for affordable housing stock. Town Meeting member Peter Welburn rose in opposition to the motion, looking to see the RFP before appropriating money (“so we see exactly what we are getting for $400,000”), preferring to have a planning director in place first, and hoping that what he described as a more collegial relationship might develop between Select Board and Planning Board members.

Ann-Mara Lanza was among Town Meeting members who spoke in favor of funding the plan, noting that the question of “Why don’t we have an overall plan?” has come up repeatedly during discussions in recent years about one project proposal or another. Don McCauley, a former Wellesley planning director, such such a plan is “an essential part of what Planning does…,” including the collection of a wealth of data that can be used for many reasons.

More money for town retirees

Town Meeting began the night by approving by voice vote a motion under Article 22, seeking authorization for the Contributory Retirement Board to increase the maximum “base” on which the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for retirees is calculated. Retirement Board Chair David Kornwitz shared comparisons between town employee pensions and Social Security benefits earned by private sector employees to help make his case for the change, which he described as incremental, “balancing our fiduciary and fiscal responsibilities to the membership and the taxpayers.”

Our earlier Annual Town Meeting coverage:

Thousands turn to The Swellesley Report daily to keep current on Wellesley: