Wellesley Special Town Meeting wrapped up on Tuesday, Nov. 7 by voting on 7 motions across 6 articles, 2 each of which focused on library and zoning matters (see Wellesley Media’s recording for all the action).

The first 2 motions of the night, 1 regarding the leasing of part of the main library branch roof for solar panels and the other for related to school purchasing contracts, both easily and quickly gained Town Meeting approval. The number of Town Meeting members in attendance dropped off from night #1, with vote totals in the 160s and 170s vs. as high as the 190s on Monday (overall Town Meeting headcount is 240).

The library article involves leasing a portion of the roof, installed in 2021, with solar panels from a third-party vendor to be chosen by the Wellesley Municipal Light Plant as part of a broader request for proposals that would also result in solar panels on Department of Public Works and Wellesley Public Schools buildings. Putting solar panels on the library roof also aligns with the town’s climate action goals, said Marla Robinson, chair of the Board of Trustees of Wellesley Free Library.

The Wellesley Public Schools article sought to give the school system more flexibility on contracts for food services, school yearbooks, and class photos. Whereas most of its contracts are limited to 3 years under state procurement laws, this would allow the school system to enter into 5-year contracts for specific services. The aim would be to gain negotiating flexibility and better deals.

When the Library Board of Trustees’ Robinson returned to the podium to make her presentation about Article 10, Town Meeting discussed the Board’s desire to set the salary for the library director for about an hour before voting against it. The rejection wasn’t a shock, as the Select Board had voted 3-2 in October not to support the article, with some concerns that allowing this change for the Library Board of Trustees could pave the way for directors of other departments seeking such a salary setup. Advisory voted 8-5 in favor of it, but those not for it raised numerous concerns.

The Board’s case for changing the way the library director’s salary is set comes amidst a period of tension at libraries across the country in light of increased book and materials challenges, and much higher than usual staff and director turnover. The Board argues that it should set the director’s salary as part of the library director contract negotiation process rather than having the town’s Human Resources Board set the salary, and points to other department leaders in town whose salaries are set by the Select Board, other boards, or department heads (Robinson also cited such examples within the school system, though Wellesley Executive Director Meghan Jop countered that that’s a difference situation). Robinson said Trustees would consult the town’s salary and classification data in setting the director’s salary, but first would look at what directors in comparable communities are making.

“The Trustees’ ability to set the library director’s salary will be a useful, proactive tool to help us retain, and/or attract, an excellent employee in a competitive market,” said Robinson, adding that the Board already has authority to hire, review, and if necessary, terminate the director.

Madison Riley, chair of the town’s Advisory Committee (which vets Town Meeting articles ahead of the actual meeting), said those on the Committee against this change had reservations about the timing of it. They pointed to the town’s plans to conduct a compensation and job classification study, and its lack of an HR director until recently. “These Advisory members desire to see both results of the study and the hiring of a new HR director play out before making a change to this town process.”

The motion failed by a vote of 78-97.

If you appreciate Swellesley saving you the time of plowing through the whole Special Town Meeting yourself, please consider supporting our work

Onto the zoning articles

The 3-plus hour second night of Special Town Meeting ended with discussion and voting on 2 zoning articles from the Planning Board. Two of 3 motions were approved.

Motion 1 of Article 13, focused on amending the inclusionary zoning provisions in town, was a proactive effort to ready the town for end-of-2024 compliance with the state’s MBTA Communities plan to boost multifamily housing near public transportation by allowing by-right development (no special permits required). It would adjust the criteria for when inclusionary zoning would be triggered by a development beyond just projects of significant impact to major construction projects merely needing a site plan review, and add 2 districts—Lower Falls and residential overlay districts—where it would apply (“A broader, fairer application of where inclusionary zoning would apply, Planning Board Chair Tom Taylor said during the article’s presentation). Inclusionary zoning, which has been in place in town since 2004, defines a certain percentage of units (20%) within a project be deemed affordable based on a state formula. The Belclare and Waterstone are among developments where such zoning has been applied.

Wellesley seeks to boost its housing diversity beyond the super expensive variety, and part of that is keeping its affordable housing stock at 10% or more of its overall housing (the town’s at 10.7%, Taylor said). This protects the town from unfriendly 40B projects that give developers significant zoning relief.

Motion 1 passed by a vote of 147-18.

Motion 2, which passed by a vote of 155-12, focused on diversifying the mix of affordable housing required under inclusionary zoning. It would go from 20% of units at 80% of area median income (Wellesley is part of a very wide area median income region that extends well beyond here) to 15% at that rate and 5% at greater than 80% of area median income (AMI) up to 140% of it. This would expand housing opportunities for those making more than 80% of AMI, including those who might be increasing their earnings as well as those who might work in town but not make enough to afford the most expensive homes in Wellesley. We’re talking housing that costs in the $450K-640K range, per a case study shared by Taylor.

Town Meeting Katherine Babson rose in support of the motion, describing it as “a terrific way of thinking of a creative way to address a piece of the housing stock that’s missing in our town.”

The grand finale, Article 14, sought to exempt attached accessory dwelling units from large house reviews on new construction and existing homes where total living area plus garage space exceeds 3,600 sq. ft. This would build on a Town Meeting article approved in spring of 2022 to allow homeowners to carve out self-contained ADUs (aka, in-law apartments) on their property. Supporting ADUs was seen as a modest attempt to allow for more diverse housing in town (Wellesley has only received 3 applications for them).

The Advisory Committee recommended favorable action 13-0, but this was a case where Town Meeting didn’t follow its lead.

Town Meeting member Tad Heuer stood in opposition to the motion primary because this “will allow ADUs to bypass the very things that we created LHR [large house review] to prevent.” He said making this change could provide a loophole for homeowners seeking to avoid some of the many expenses (i.e., paying a host of professionals such as surveyors and  architects) involved in building a home that complies with large house review rules.

Town Meeting member David Himmelberger agreed, and said the Planning Board has better mechanisms (such as waivers) for accomplishing what this motion attempts. “We said at the outset that LHR is against the spirit of ADUs; one could also say ADUs are against the spirit of large house review,” he said, adding that having LHRs in place since 2007 has on a whole benefited the town thanks to thoughtful review of projects by the Planning Board.

Others raised concerns about the impact allowing ADUs to be built more easily might have on abutters and their rights.

The motion got shot down, with the vote total 51 “Yes,” 116 “No,” and 1 “Abstain.”

Now a break before Annual Town Meeting commences in the spring.

See also:

• Wellesley Special Town Meeting night #1: Union contracts, strategic housing plan & pop-pop-pop-pickleball
• Wellesley Town Meeting gives Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick a vote of confidence

With word that the controversial Article 15 (aka, Sisters of Charity zoning amendment) would not be moved at Wellesley’s Special Town Meeting on Monday night, hopes were high that this might be a one-and-done event. But the chances of that happening were dashed early, with Town Meeting only reaching Article 5 at 9pm, a full two hours in, after the moderator had earlier informed Wellesley’s legislative body that the goal was to get things wrapped by 10:30pm if possible.

So what took all that time despite the lack of bagpipes and other pomp and circumstance that takes place at the larger Annual Town Meeting in the spring? Some technical issues with the electronic voting devices cost a good 15-20 minutes, but that wasn’t to blame. There was just lots of business to get done.

The list of 14 remaining articles on the Special Town Meeting warrant might have been a tad deceiving in that some articles contained multiple motions. Article 2, for example, had 7 motions related to settlement of union contracts, and took about 50 minutes to go through. No real drama here, unlike during Annual Town Meeting when Wellesley Public School teachers showed up in big numbers with their red shirts as their contract negotiations dragged on (a deal was reached in May, after Town Meeting).

Motions under Article 2 dealt with other unions, including for those who provide public safety, public works, facilities, and library services.

Wellesley Executive Director Meghan Jop kicked off discussion of the motions by thanking the unions for “a very successful bargaining session… it was very collegial and collaborative,” as well as by thanking department heads involved. She noted that the town had put aside about $1.2M in its FY24 budget for contract settlements and came in just under that.

Repeating a concern heard often at town government meetings over the past few years, Jop cited challenges in hiring, including at the Department of Public Works, which has had vacancy rates of up to 20%, and the fire department, which will be hiring to replace up to 8 firefighters in FY24. The public safety dispatcher vacancy rate has hit 60%. So in coming to terms on salaries, the town did some serious number crunching to ensure its offers would be competitive. “Our goal was to bring these unions to median [compensation],” she said before introducing the DPW Production staff agreement, which started with a 5% cost-of-living adjustment-inspired salary increase of 5% in year one. A 4-day, 10-hour-per-day work week has been among things piloted by the DPW to attract and retain talent. Also getting a big bump, 6%, in the first year of their new contract are police patrol officers, which are also tough to hire and now need to adhere to a new state certification under the POST Commission.

All 7 motions under Article 2 easily passed, with only a few comments or questions from Town Meeting members over a period of about 50 minutes to get through them all.

Article 3 contained just 2 motions, both involving additional FY24 appropriations, the first involving the fire department, which has had a history of significant deficits caused by in part by staffing shortages and resulting overtime costs for those who fill the gaps (including deputy chiefs). With the retirement of the longtime fire chief, and installment of an interim chief, the Select Board and Jop took a fresh look at this situation, and among other things proposed hiring an additional firefighter to address the staff operating sometimes with the minimum allowed number of personnel. “We’re in a constant state of hiring at the fire department at this time,” said Jop, adding that new firefighters require new uniforms, etc. Motion 1 called for $360,000 in additional spending be allowed on the fire department, and Town Meeting passed this by a count of 194-1.

Motion 2 under Article 3 involved a request for a relatively mere $11K to cover valuation services for the Board of Assessors. This passed unanimously.

The subject of Article 4 is 1 of everybody’s favorite: Rescinding of debt. In this case, $3.1M reimbursed for the Hardy Elementary School project. This passed easily, though a motion was made to continue the meeting to Tuesday, Nov. 7 if needed.

Housing & pickleball

Things were moving right along. Then came Article 5, brought forward by the Community Preservation Committee (CPC), which recommends spending on projects from a surcharge on property taxes and matching state money. Such funds are mainly for projects related to open space, affordable housing, recreation, and historic buildings and landscapes, and consultants are all ears when it comes to these plans.

Town Meeting spent most of the rest of Monday’s meeting on Article 5.

The first motion was a request for $65,000 to create a strategic housing plan to be conducted by a consultant. Based on the level of angst in town now between those who are pushing for new housing anywhere there’s space vs. those against having it in their neighborhood, there’s a need for a more thought-out scheme for determining the best way to increase the amount and diversity of the town’s housing in such a way that will meet demand for housing but also respect those who already live here. The request was sponsored by a Housing Task Force consisting of reps from various town bodies, such as the Select Board, Planning Board, and Wellesley’s housing-focused groups.

This plan would serve as a follow-on to the state-approved Wellesley Housing Production Plan, which helped the town meet the state’s requirement to have 10% of its housing stock deemed affordable and allowed Wellesley to stave off unfriendly 40B projects that gave developers lots of leeway to build wherever and under looser zoning. The new plan would guide the town’s review and possible updates to its zoning bylaw as well at a time when suburbs like Wellesley are under fire for historically being too restrictive despite recent efforts by the town to address concerns, such as through inclusionary zoning that requires a certain amount of affordable units in new developments and plans to meet the state’s new MBTA Communities multifamily zoning rules.

The overall goal would be to strategize a way to introduce more affordable units not just for low-income individuals, but for downsizers, young people, and those working for or in the town.  A $10K housing study conducted on behalf of the Wellesley Housing Development Corp. yet illustrated such demand via hard data. As it is, the bulk of new units being built here go for $1M or more.

CPC Chair Barbara McMahon said “The goals of this new strategic plan are many, but we believe they are attainable and necessary,” she said, pointing to Gov. Maura Healey’s big push to address the state’s housing crisis.

A few comments were made and questions asked by Town Meeting members, including when the public would get to provide input into any such plan. The motion passed by a count of 160-15 (by the way, if you’re wondering, Wellesley Town Meeting consists of 240 members, so we’re not sure what the Naples happened to the rest).

Motion 2 under Article 5 focused on a study of another kind: A $70K request regarding the criteria and feasibility of siting pickleball courts in town (1 Town Meeting member said “I have to find it somewhat amusing” that more was being requested for a pickleball study than a housing plan).

Much of the discussion leading up to this motion centered around the possibility of pickleball courts coming to the Morses Pond parking lot in the wake of dissension between players and neighbors at Sprague Field and Perrin Park. People want to play outside, but many neighbors said the game is just too loud, and the idea of locating courts at Morses Pond has raised environmental concerns from some.

“The CPC has heard loud and clear from all corners of town about pickleball,” McMahon said.

A recent field utilization study conducted in town found that up to 14 standalone courts might be needed to meet demand. Recreation Commission Chair Paul Cramer said the town has almost that number of courts available, but some have quality issues and others have location issues.

The CPC funding being requested would initially include such things as determining demand, ranking possible locations, and establishing criteria for locations. Then a chunk of the funding would be used to evaluate specific sites.

Familiar face from Wellesley’s pickleball drama, pro and con, made familiar points about the popular paddle sport.

Questions were raised by Town Meeting members about such issues as evaluating indoor vs. outdoor courts. We’ve heard from some that “pickleball should just be an indoor game,” though of course many players enjoy getting outdoors and playing it.

One Town Meeting member said the community-building aspect of pickleball is huge, so having a bunch of courts together rather than spread all over town is important to enable that. Another vouched for the inclusivity of pickleball in that it’s not just for older people, but also entire families.

Town Meeting approved funding the study by a 135-40-1 vote (see the Town Meeting scorecard for all vote totals so far).

Still to come…

Tuesday’s meeting, at 7pm at the Middle School, will tackle issues such as solar panels at the library, inclusionary zoning, and accessory dwelling units.

• See also:
• Wellesley Town Meeting gives Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick a vote of confidence
• Wellesley Special Town Meeting night #2: Library Board wins 1, loses 1; Inclusionary zoning changes approved; ADU motion fails

Please support Swellesley, your local news source, by advertising or contributing