Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wellesley Advisory Committee votes down amendment to Article 32; recommends unfavorable action on RIO change
Summary
The Wellesley Advisory Committee voted 4–8 on April 6 against a motion to take favorable action on an amendment to the motion under Warrant Article 32, recommending unfavorable action. Members debated whether the amendment would effectively eliminate the RIO tool, raise density concerns (31 units/acre), and affect potential senior housing at 888 Worcester Street.
The Wellesley Advisory Committee voted 4–8 on April 6 against a motion to take favorable action on an amendment to the motion under Warrant Article 32, and recommended unfavorable action on the amendment.
The vote came after roughly an hour of discussion at Wellesley High School, where committee members debated whether the proposed amendment would "functionally eliminate the RIO," raise density concerns and funnel large projects into certain areas, or appropriately give the town more control over planning tools.
Doug Wilkins, the committee secretary, moved for favorable action on the amendment; Dan Weinger seconded the motion. The motion failed 4–8. The text of the amendment as moved is not specified in the transcript.
Opponents pointed to the Planning Board's April 2, 3—3 vote against changing the current motion and urged that Town Meeting should have the opportunity to deliberate on the original motion the Planning Board supports. One committee member said the amendment would "functionally eliminate the RIO," and others warned the change could have unintended interactions with the MBTA Communities Act and state-level requirements.
Supporters of the amendment said the Town should be "in the driver's seat" on planning tools, arguing that mechanisms the RIO Task Force had expected (notably development agreements) did not materialize after the Select Board declined that role. One proponent said the original motion could produce "the worst possible outcome" by removing single-family districts while leaving other zones, potentially funneling density without safeguards.
Members also debated concrete consequences. A member described RIO density as "too dense" at 31 units per acre; another raised concern that removing RIO eligibility could make proposed senior housing harder to develop, citing 888 Worcester Street as a potential senior congregate living project (the committee clarified 888 Worcester Street is not currently using a RIO). A separate member asked whether past RIOs had produced beneficial outcomes, citing Waterstone and the 40B Terrazza project as examples where the tool influenced results.
Cost and equity concerns surfaced in the discussion. One member said RIO-related projects could cost "$2–4 million" and questioned whether such proposals would serve elderly or low-income households.
Several members said the broader questions of density, acreage, height and setbacks were better handled through the RIO Task Force and a townwide comprehensive plan, or left to the Planning Board. Multiple speakers urged more time for deliberation rather than rushing a bylaw change at Town Meeting.
After debate, the committee recorded a 4—3 vote against recommending favorable action on the amendment and issued an unfavorable recommendation. The meeting was adjourned at the close of Town Meeting.
What happens next: Advisory's unfavorable recommendation will be part of Advisory's report to Town Meeting; Town Meeting members will consider the original Article 32 motion and any amendments during the warrant session. The transcript does not specify final motion language or which individual committee members voted yes or no.
