Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 40 Oakland Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Select Board to seek lower density or litigate over 40 Oakland Street development
Summary
At the June 2 Select Board meeting residents urged the Board to prioritize reducing density at the proposed 40 Oakland Street development, with some callers urging litigation before the state’s July 1 sale date; the Board later entered executive session to discuss potential litigation.
Dozens of residents told the Wellesley Select Board on June 2 that the proposed 180‑unit project at 40 Oakland Street threatens nearby conservation land and town traffic, and several urged the Board to make reduced density the chief negotiating priority or to pursue litigation.
The most pointed remarks came during the public-comment period. Laura Robert of Greenlawn Avenue presented wildlife photos from MassBay Forest and nearby reservations and urged the Board to "protect the Town's biodiversity" in light of state goals to increase biodiversity. Neurosurgeon Giannina L. Garcés‑Ambrossi Muncey said the trees and ecosystem must be protected "no less alive than we are." Several speakers, including Doug Youngen of Friends of Centennial, reported organized opposition—yard signs and petitions—and said Town Meeting had authorized funds for litigation if negotiations fail.
Why this matters: the parcel at issue was part of a state disposition process for MassBay property, and speakers framed the dispute as both an environmental and procedural problem. Some residents argued that 180 units on roughly 5–8 acres would create a density they say is incompatible with the neighborhood and would worsen traffic; others urged focused negotiation on traffic mitigation and other conditions rather than unit count.
Paul White, a recently retired trial lawyer, urged the Board to consider filing suit to change the state's negotiating posture, arguing a lawsuit would expose both sides to legal costs and alter incentives. Lynn Hlatky drew on prior litigation experience and warned that a July 1 date on which the state could begin selling the property made pre‑litigation filing urgent. By contrast, Ann‑Mara Lanza said many voters who supported negotiation at the Special Town Meeting were comfortable with the 180‑unit figure and preferred to press for traffic, safety, and other conditions rather than a reduced unit count.
The Board took a procedural step related to the matter later in the meeting: at 9:11 p.m. members voted unanimously to enter Executive Session under M.G.L. c. 30A §21A Exemption #3 to discuss strategy regarding potential litigation on 40 Oakland Street and related matters; the Board invited the Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, Town Counsel, and Special Counsel to attend. The motion noted that discussing strategy in open session would be detrimental to the Town’s position. The Board exited Executive Session later and adjourned.
Select Board members did not vote on any substantive change to the state's proposal at the June 2 meeting; public commenters requested that the Board publicly list density reduction as a top negotiating priority on the Town website and provide regular updates as negotiations proceed.
