To the editor:
There is a foundational legal question posed by residents and local elected representatives that remains unanswered—Is the MassBay parcel at 40 Oakland Street surplus property as the State claims, or is the parcel protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts
Constitution?
What is being mandated by the State has not yet been judicially challenged. The Affordable Homes Act (AHA) is a new and untested law. There’s a strong argument that the MassBay parcel is Article 97 land, which would mean it is exempt from the 2024 Affordable Homes Act (AHA) and exempt from surplus classification.
The 40-acre forest is part of an 80-acre environmental corridor that includes Article 97- protected Centennial Reservation—a mature, functioning ecosystem of wetlands, wildlife habitat, and forest canopy that has taken generations to establish. In addition, its longstanding town stewardship and public use are well documented.
The 40-acre forest is not an abstract green backdrop. It is a living forest—located completely within the town’s Water Supply Protection District containing 6 of the town’s 10 drinking water wells. It is indefensible to erect what would be Wellesley’s second largest, most dense housing on the border of a prime forest as well as uphill from the location of these wells.
No State representative has ever said the entire forest will be permanently saved. Due diligence is required to determine if the MassBay parcel at 40 Oakland Street qualifies as Article 97 land.
There is also the issue of parking. The State’s parking study says that 500 students park on the site every day. If the state uses 50 Oakland Street (main campus) for parking students’ cars, 135 parking spaces are still projected to be needed for student parking on this five-acre lot. How is the parking lot surplus land when it is needed by students every day? This is not an “underused” parking lot as is being described by some.
Due diligence on behalf of the town and its residents means finding out if the parking lot is truly surplus and if the forest is Article 97 land.
The MassBay site is not within walking distance of MBTA services, grocery stores, or other essential services, key tenets of sustainable housing. The proposed dense housing development, accessible only by car, does not address accessibility and affordability concerns for future residents who will also need to manage a “shared parking arrangement” with MassBay students.
Proper due diligence also requires a complete understanding of how acreage can be legally utilized in the State’s calculation for housing. Can the State legally claim that land will not be built on and then use the land to inflate the number of units built? Five acres do not quietly become forty-five because the State prefers a certain large number of houses. Claiming that the vast majority of the forest will be protected “long term” while simultaneously relying on the forest’s acres to inflate buildable units is a contradiction that collapses under its own weight.
Finding out how many acres can be used to calculate the number of buildable units is also an important part of due diligence for this proposal.
The state’s proposal to include forested land for housing development in Wellesley sets a dangerous precedent Statewide. Many public forests lack formal Article 97 designation and therefore are not protected and vulnerable to housing development under the AHA. This issue extends far beyond Wellesley—across the Commonwealth.
Contrary to other views, building out of a deep housing crisis has not proved immensely complicated in Wellesley. Wellesley is committed to advancing affordable housing and is an active partner working with the Commonwealth to increase and diversify housing. Wellesley exceeds the State’s 40B affordable housing requirement, far surpassing many communities. It is compliant under the new MBTA Communities Act, rezoning to allow 1600 housing units within half a mile of public transit. Wellesley has adopted Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s), 20 percent inclusionary (affordable) zoning, and created a Strategic Housing Plan. Notably, Wellesley has added approximately 550 multi-family units in recent years including: The Nines, Fieldstone, Terrazza, The BelClare, The Bristol, Highland Park, Cedar Place, and currently under construction, The Bellwether. Wellesley is also in the process of permitting a new senior living facility at 888 Worcester Street, and approved 500 more rental units at The Nines.
Despite its name, the 2024 Affordable Homes Act does not require developers to include “affordable” units. Affordable units would be included only if a developer chooses to comply with Wellesley’s 20 percent inclusionary zoning bylaw. Ironically, some housing advocates and a Cambridge developer are challenging inclusionary zoning in court. Due diligence demands understanding if the developer actually has a responsibility to affordability.
The bottom line is we need answers to many questions, and if the MassBay property qualifies as Article 97, it deserves constitutional clarity and permanent protection. The Wellesley Select Board has asked these same questions. No proposal can be evaluated as beneficial to the people of Wellesley and the Commonwealth until these threshold legal questions are answered.
There is a view that it’s hard for some people to imagine a better place for development. Residents of Wellesley and surrounding towns can’t imagine a worse place. At 40 units per acre, the proposal is pernicious and will overpower one of Wellesley’s most important natural assets. MBTA services are over a mile away, making it car dependent for transit and essential services; there will be increased vs. lessened congestion; shared parking with college students; and no assurance of affordable housing. There is also no guarantee the college will get the full amount of funds needed to support its students other than the sale of the 40 Oakland Street parcel which falls short by a lot.
As Representative Peisch explained to the Wellesley Select Board, this is about housing. “The number one message we got from them is that this is a housing project,” Rep. Peisch relayed. They were not open to putting this project aside to look at other ways to help the college achieve its funding needs, she said. (The Swellesley Report, 10.9.25)
This is why we must reject a “check-the-box” narrative put forth by the State in its single focused quest for housing. We should instead be striving to put forth the time and effort to understand complex issues from all perspectives and find solutions that actually work.
These are substantive issues requiring thoughtful examination that once done can never be undone.
Laura Robert, Greenlawn Avenue
Leslie Hanrahan, Putney Road
Raina McManus, Mulherin Lane
for Friends of Brookside













