Wellesley Select Board approves Special Town Meeting article language on MassBay land plans

April 22, 2026

The Wellesley Select Board on Tuesday approved language for a Special Town Meeting article regarding the state’s proposed sale of land at MassBay Community College to support the creation of 180 housing units and partially fund future upgrades on the MassBay campus (see Wellesley Media recording).

The board is set to make a presentation about the article at the Advisory Committee on Wednesday, April 2s at 6:30pm, and then reconvene for a Select Board meeting on Thursday, April 23 at 6:30pm to discuss the motion language under the article.

The Select Board, on the heels of the latest communication from the state regarding the future of 45 acres of MassBay property, last week called for a Special Town Meeting on May 11 where the issue will be addressed. The state’s plans to sell MassBay property deemed “surplus”—roughly five acres of parking lot, roughly 40 acres of forest—has sparked concerns from neighbors and users of the adjacent Centennial Reservation as well as enthusiasm from those who say the state’s plans could lead to needed housing, protections for the forest, and improvements at MassBay.

The Select Board’s plan for Special Town Meeting is to put a non-binding question or questions to Wellesley’s elected legislators to gauge what course they and their constituents would like the town to take on the MassBay land matter.

Article 2 language reads as follows:

To see if the Town will vote to advise the Select Board to take the following actions:

A. Pursue an agreement with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wherein the Town will accept the construction of 180 units of housing on and around the parking lot at 40 Oakland Street on approximately 7 to 8 acres of land in exchange for a permanent conservation restriction for passive recreation on the remaining 37 to 38 acres of land at that location; or

B. Pursue litigation against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that some or all of the land located at 40 Oakland Street is not legally available for housing use, and seeking to limit, to the greatest extent feasible, the amount of housing that may be constructed on any portion of the property determined to be eligible for such use; or to take any other action in relation thereto

Town Counsel Tom Harrington presented the draft article language. The Select Board has been meeting behind closed doors for months with attorneys to explore possible litigation over the MassBay matter (the board has also provided public updates and allowed for public comment).

Select Board member Kenny Largess, one of numerous lawyers at Town Hall that night, proposed broader language, fearing that the draft language from Harrington was too narrow. He described a scenario where people who might not be inclined to vote for negotiating with the state might feel forced to do so without having a real sense of how litigation might go. Harrington assured that Town Meeting members would be able to make motions that focused on something in between the goalposts set out in the article language.

Beth Sullivan Woods favored the Largess proposal, and took exception to specifying acreage amounts in the language.

“This sets up a premise that it’s fight the definition of ‘surplus’ or agree that 180 is the right number,” she said. “I have never heard from this community that 180 units on the parking lot is acceptable to anyone…”

Board Chair Marjorie Freiman said that what she has heard from the public over the past year is that the town’s priority is protecting the forest.

“If we can get 37 or 38 acres can we live with the result?” she asked. “Well, that’s essentially the question, that’s the bottom line question. What’s your priority? What are you willing to live with? What are you willing to risk? What are you willing to give up?”

Board member Tom Ulfelder backed the language from Harrington, arguing that it “sharpens the debate.” He stated, “that stark difference between [A and B] is exactly what we want the community and Town Meeting to understand. That we don’t have fine gradations of the state’s offer realistically in front of us that we can push forward. Board member Colette Aufranc also supported the original article draft language, seeing it as “not binary, there’s a sliding scale” within the parameters.

Freiman emphasized a reason for holding Special Town Meeting on May 11 and keeping it to one night is that it will give the town a chance to hit the state’s May 13 deadline for submitting comments on the disposition and reuse of the property at 40 Oakland St. “We don’t want to lose the opportunity to respond to the state within the time that they have given us. Again, they are the state and we’re the town…”