The Wellesley Select Board this week (see Wellesley Media’s April 27 meeting recording) came to agreement on the motion language to be discussed and voted on at the May 11 Special Town Meeting to be held at Wellesley High School at 7pm. The board is seeking input from Town Meeting members and residents on non-binding questions about the designation as surplus land and subsequent land disposition of 40 Oakland St. at MassBay Community College.
The April 27 meeting further refined motion language discussed at an April 23 Select Board meeting.
The state is seeking to have a developer build 180 units of housing across from the MassBay Campus adjacent to the forest that abuts—and essentially blends into—the town-owned Centennial Reservation. The state is taking its action under the Affordable Homes Act designed to help address the Commonwealth’s housing shortage. The MassBay issue has been hugely controversial in in town, with some worried that the housing development will infringe on the forest and worsen traffic in the area, while others say the housing is needed, that an agreement with the state will actually protect the forest, and that funding from the development can be used to support MassBay.
(The Swellesley Report was the first to report on this issue, all the way back on June 2, 2025.)
In a letter to Town Meeting members, Moderator Mark Kaplan wrote “This is not a traditional Town Meeting. The Select Board is seeking Town Meeting’s non-binding advice on three possible options in response to the State’s proposed development on and/or in the immediate vicinity of the Mass Bay Community College’s parking lot at 40 Oakland Street. There is a lot of work, and it needs to be completed in just one session…” The state has set a deadline of May 13 for feedback on the MassBay land disposition ahead of a request for proposals being issued to developers mid-year.
The warrant for Special Town Meeting includes just two motions on which Town Meeting will be asked to weigh in.
Article 2, Motion 1 reads as follows, giving Town Meeting members a choice of three ways (A, B, or C via an electronic vote) to direct the Select Board on the MassBay matter (No motions to amend the main motion will be allowed):
OPTION A
That Town Meeting advise the Select Board to approve the framework proposed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in its April 13, 2026 letter to the Town for the disposition and development of the property located at 40 Oakland Street as follows:
- a. development of 180 units;
- b. concentrating development on and around the parking lot area (7 to 8 acres);
- c. requiring the developer to deliver a conservation restriction to a qualified entity of the Town’s choosing on the remainder of the site (37 to 38 acres); and
- d. requiring the developer to comply with inclusionary zoning requirements
OPTION B
That Town Meeting advise the Select Board, exercising its powers, discretion, and judgment, to negotiate with the Commonwealth for the disposition and development of the property located at 40 Oakland Street maximizing the benefits and minimizing the impact to the Town and emphasizing the following conditions as important to the Town:
- a. 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;
- b. that the developer offer a conservation restriction to be held by the Town on the remainder of the property so that it is permanently preserved as publicly accessible open space for passive recreation;
- c. that the scale, massing, and architecture of the development be designed to blend in with its surroundings;
- d. that the number of units be reduced to the greatest degree possible;
- e. that a range of housing types be considered, including age-restricted/senior housing, workforce housing, and housing for the disabled;
- f. that all parking for MassBay be removed from 40 Oakland Street;
- g. that the Commonwealth assist the Town by improving circulation, ingress/egress and pedestrian safety along Oakland Street and turning movements at the Route 9 and Oakland Street intersection;
- h. that the Commonwealth provide primary ingress and egress to and from the MassBay campus directly from Route 9;
- i. that the development be subject to the Town’s Wetlands Protection Bylaw and Water Supply Protection Overlay District;
- j. that the development comply with the Town’s Inclusionary Zoning Bylaw;
- k. that the Town enter into a Development Agreement with the developer with binding conditions;
and further, that the Town preserves all available legal rights and options, including litigation.
OPTION C
That Town Meeting advise the Select Board to proceed directly to litigation against the Commonwealth on any legal issues available to the Town to challenge the disposition and development of the property located at 40 Oakland Street
The town’s appointed Advisory Committee, which vets articles and motions ahead of actual Town Meetings, voted largely in favor of Option B (see Wellesley Media recording of April 29 meeting).
Special Town Meeting Article 3, Motion 1 is a more straightforward, and binding motion focused on funding litigation:
That the Town transfer the sum of $900,000.00 (NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS) for legal and related professional services, said sum to be taken from Certified Free Cash and added to the amount appropriated to Select Board – Shared Services – 151 Law under Motion 2 of Article 8 of the Warrant for the 2026 Annual Town Meeting, said funds to be used only for matters related to 40 Oakland Street.
- Stay informed: Sign up for Swellesley’s weekday email newsletter
- Support your local news source: Consider making a tax-deductible donation
- Keep us in the loop: Message us with tips, ideas, photos etc.: theswellesleyreport@gmail.com
Instead of asking for a vote on one of the three options above, please POLL Wellesley residents on whether or not there should be ANY development in this location.
If Wellesley votes overwhelmingly to NOT allow development at Massbay, the board should choose a course of action that best achieves that goal. This may or may not be one of the three listed options.
Help us stop this development!
Wellesley does need housing, but NOT at this location.
The proposal for 180 Units on this parcel is an UNACCEPTABLE option. It will exacerbate the already bad traffic problem, seriously impacting public schools in the area, and all local residents. Even if the project is limited to the parking lot and “areas surrounding the parking lot”, it will still harm the forest and wildlife and our wetlands and drinking water supply.
None of the options above is great. We should select the best option that will allow us to STOP this development altogether.
“Wellesley does need housing, but NOT at this location.” This statement is just another reflection of a reactive paradigm in which no one wants more development in the immediate vicinity of their house, and simultaneously no one wants to do the hard work of implementing proactive solutions to Wellesley’s housing problems. Where are the people who make statements like this when it comes time to stand up in support of the “good” projects?
You might think the Tailby lot is a better place to build without disturbing wetlands or water supply, for example. But the College Heights neighbors found plenty of other reasons to say no when that development was on the table, and few other people even showed up to the public meetings about it.
Building dense, multifamily housing in places like Wellesley is not without risks of environmental harm. But relative to the status quo of suburban sprawl and increasingly long car-based commutes, it is progress. Personally, I am confident that any effects on wetlands and drinking water supply could be adequately mitigated if this development moves forward. Same with traffic, schools, forest, and wildlife impacts.
And the MassBay project has reasons for environmentalists to be excited too. Without the housing, the state has no reason to establish a permanent conservation protection on the forest, which is currently unprotected. There is no alternative location for this development that would allow us to preserve the forest.
This forest must be protected!
Wellesley doesn’t need more housing, This would be a huge disaster if housing takes place.
Wellesley absolutely needs more housing, and if we opt into negotiations with the state on the 11th, we’re putting ourselves in a good position to both protect the forest and build the housing.
There are things I like and don’t like about options A and B. There’s no reason why we need to build on more than 5 acres here – option A saying 7 or 8 is imposing an unnecessary tradeoff on the situation. I also don’t like that option B proposes reducing the number of homes in the project. In reality, at least 180 homes are necessary to satisfy the needs of all stakeholders, particularly MassBay’s capital needs. And we do need the housing.
But option C would be completely unacceptable. It would throw away the best chance we have to ensure the project’s outcomes are beneficial to the town, waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, and stir up bad blood with the state for no reason. And if the Article 97 thing is our best chance at succeeding in court, then we’re going to lose that lawsuit and be right back to square one anyway – with the state certainly disinclined to work with us going forward.