Shhhhhh! Foodie’s Market Is Open In Belmont Center

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Open for business.

Pssst. Keep this under your hat, but …

Foodie’s Market is open for business. 

Just a little more than two years ago when it first announced plans to place a store in the former Macys’/Filenes’ location on Leonard Street in Belmont Center, the South End-based supermarket chain opened its doors, albeit quietly, on Wednesday afternoon, May 10.

For Christina Hooley, the assistant store manager of the fourth Foodie’s in Greater Boston, it’s exciting to finally have customers and staff in the store located at 87 Leonard St. 

“We are happy to be open, but we aren’t making a big announcement. This is really a ‘quiet’ opening,” said Hooley, opening five days before the upcoming weeklong Grand Opening celebration beginning Monday, May 15 and lasting until Town Day, May 20. 

While customers were moving between rows of produce, fruit, meats and the freshly-made meal counters Thursday morning, there were workers with ladders and tools doing final repairs and installations as cashiers and staff continued to bring in product to the store.

Foodie’s has released its Opening Week schedule of tastings and events:

Monday, May 15, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.:

  • Deano Pasta – Ravioli and Sause
  • Farmer Willie’s Craft Ginger Beer

Wednesday, May 17, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.:

  • Andrea Alexander from Giannoni Selection Wines

Thursday, May 18, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.:

  • Indaba Wines
  • Eric Spitz from Baystate Wine
  • SABRA FOODS – Middle Eastern food

Friday, May 19:

  • 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.: SID WAINER- Bacon, Chicken Sausage, Cheese
  • Noon – 4 p.m.: YANKEE TRADER – Seafood Appetizers
  • 4 p.m. – 8 p.m.: FOOD MATCH – Olive/Wine/Cheese 
  • 5 p.m. – 7 p.m.: Casey Gruttadauria from Ideal Wine & Spirits

Saturday, May 20 (Belmont Town Day)

 

  • Outside giveaways: KIND BARS, POLAR SELTZERS
  • FOOD MATCH: Wella Bars, Fig Spread, Cheese
  • 5 p.m. – 7 p.m.: Dave Bove from Vineyard Brands

Town Meeting Overwhelmingly OKs ‘Welcoming Town’ Article

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Michael Chesson.

On Monday, May 8, Michael Chesson came to the microphone at the annual Belmont Town Meeting to speak his mind on the contentious proposal to create a “Welcoming Town” for residents with questionable immigration status.

He finished to a standing ovation after expressing the heartfelt sentiment of many of his neighbors seeking to embrace those wanting to make the “Town of Homes” a place all can live without fear of apprehension.

The Whitcomb Street homeowner who served 35 years in the Navy – advancing from recruit to captain – said during his military tenure, he served with Americans of all races, genders and sexual orientation.

“We always came together as a team. Worked hard and played just as hard. We venerated the same flag as we pledged allegiance to tonight,” said the UMass-Boston instructor who wore a NAVY varsity jacket with patches from a lifetime of assignments.

“That flag is not a banner of exclusion; it is a proud symbol of enduring virtues and a reminder of us all of the sacrifice,” said the 29-year town resident. 

“If Belmont becomes a “Welcoming Community,” I’ll wear that on my sleeve,” he said.

By the end of the night, Chesson joined 197 Town Meeting members voting 198-59 to declare their hometown as a welcoming Town,” voting nearly four to one to approve a non-binding article restating current Police Department practices of not asking the immigration status of a person or resident they encounter. 

Belmont joined Arlington’s Town Meeting – which approved its “Welcoming Town” article Monday night – as the latest communities to pass measures reaffirming residents’ wishes to support all residents regardless of their national origin. 

Belmont’s vote counters recent actions by bodies which either rejected both sanctuary-like legislation and welcoming designations – Hull (Mass) Town Meeting – or requiring state and municipal police to inquire a person’s legal status during routine stops as was approved in Texas.

The article was one of the most controversial non-budgetary articles in recent Town Meeting memory. Opponents of the measure paid for robocalls denouncing the article as wrongheaded and potentially a financial drain and distributed stickers stating “No on 10.” Article 10 supporters and those in opposition rallied outside Belmont High School with signs in hand before Monday’s meeting.

Inside the auditorium, Belmont Moderator Michael Widmer asked despite the “strong feelings on both sides” that “we air our differences in a respectful and dignified fashion.”After presenting her article to the members, Mahon thanked the Belmont Police command staff for helping to craft the article which was complete with “complicated issues and [its] input and assistance was critical.”

After presenting her article to the members – the complete article is at the bottom of the page – Mahon thanked the Belmont Police command staff for helping to craft the article which she noted does not make Belmont a “sanctuary city.”

“We at Town Meeting are often asked to weigh on matters which we do not have specific jurisdiction,” said Mahon.

“The goal of this resolution is to voice Town Meeting’s support for the continuation of the Belmont Police Department practices …, so residents feel safe approaching Belmont Police without fear they will be detained or questioned about their status,” she said.

The fear that Belmont Police will seek the status of any residents will likely prevent those individuals or families from reporting crimes such as domestic violence, which Mahon’s co-presenter Paul Roberts, Precinct 8, said: “makes us all less safe.”

“Belmont is a safe community in part due to the heroic effort of our police officers. But it is also safe because we work alongside our police to keep the community safe” which include native residents, green card holders “and, yes, undocumented residents,” said Mahon.

Mahon said the article reaffirms the values of a cohesive community “that welcomes and accepts without prejudice those of all races, religions, and nationalities.”

During the subsequent debate, many residents gave personal insight why the declaration was necessary for Town Meeting to pass.

Mark Carthy, Pct. 1, “and an immigrant,” said regardless of anti-bias laws, there is “discrimination out there” and resolutions such as the welcoming article “is to make sure people’s behaviors goes beyond the laws we have.” 

Mike Crowley, Pct. 8, whose ancestors who arrived in America 350 years ago “were certainly illegal” said the diversity of national origin of residents and businesses just in his precinct is broad and varied. “I am not in the position of adjudicating what their immigration status are. I’m in the business of treating them as a neighbor.” 

Marty Cohen, Pct. 3, said when he arrived in Belmont half a century ago, “there was a certain amount of antisemitism” but it has changed for the better so that the town is a welcoming community “and we should say that with pride unless we are too modest to say so.” 

The proposal’s opponents expressed their concerns, focusing on the “slippery slope” which the article will lead to increasing demands on police procedures to impede federal immigration efforts.

Tomi Olson, Pct. 5, said the town is already a welcoming town as noted by numerous proclamations and statements by town official and committees. The article presumes that “the town and Belmont Police are … in need of being told how to be welcoming to immigrants.”

Olson noted many negative statements directed towards the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency remain in the article despite an attempt to include language from Belmont Police to “nullify” Mahon. 

“Town officials with businesses and residents have told me that they fear to oppose this article because they fear retribution, being demonized and being called ugly names,” said Olson, who called the article “a Trojan horse” that will eventually lead to sanctuary city status. 

Both Selectman Mark Paolillo and Belmont Police Chief McLaughlin reiterated the article would unalter current law enforcement practices.

It was Chesson, whose direct narrative captivated the 300 members and residents in the auditorium.  

While admitting the non-binding measure is a symbol, a “feel good” measure “like my new puppies or the children on Whitcomb,” Chesson said Article 10 makes explicit statements on “who we are and what we believe. It lays down a marker; It proclaims community values.”

Belmont can not wall itself off from so-called high crime cities like Boston, Somerville or even Watertown. Defeating Article 10 will not make us safer, he said. Passing it will not mean immigrants will be flocking to Belmont; “they can’t afford it.”

Volunteering at a food pantry in Chelsea, he comes across “many good people in that immigrant community, just like those immigrants who worked on the farms in Belmont;” the town’s prosperity until the first part of the past century “relied on immigrant labor,” said Chesson.

“Town meeting members ancestors fought the Alien and Sedition Acts or struggled to find jobs with INNA [Irish Need Not Apply] signs everywhere, who resisted the Fugitive Slave Law or endured anti-Italian slurs, survived the Armenian genocide or the Nazi Holocaust. And went through two Red scares after two World Wars.”

“Like them, we should stand for what’s best, the good in all of us.” said Chesson, who received a standing ovation from a good portion of Town Meeting. 

After the vote – he was surrounded by admirers in the school’s hallway – Chesson told the Belmontonian said while he is “basically a curmudgeon, I have a tremendous response for underdogs” such as people who will travel thousands of miles so that they can work hard and make a living.  

“When frightened, desperate people are being persecuted or chased; I have to respond. Yes, they may have broken the law to come here, but a lot of rich people break the law on Wall Street and Washington. Why single out the desperate ones? We can do better than that.” 


ARTICLE 10: WELCOMING TOWN DESIGNATION 

MOVED: That the Town adopts the following resolution: 

1. Whereas, Historically Belmont has welcomed immigrants from many regions around the world, including the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America; and 

2. Whereas, Immigrants have enriched the fabric of this community, adding new life and great potential to Belmont; and 

3. Whereas, Assumptions made about a person’s legal status in the United States that are based on the person’s religion, ethnicity, or national origin, and discrimination, harassment, or bullying of people based on those assumptions, have no place in our community. 

4. Whereas, National policies that discriminate against immigrants because of religion or country of origin run counter to our values; and 

5. Whereas, In some communities, local law enforcement agencies are used to collect and deliver immigration status data to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); and 

6. Whereas, ICE may issue voluntary information or detainer requests that could subject individuals who are in local custody to prolonged detention; and 

7. Whereas, It is believed in some communities that when local law enforcement officials indiscriminately comply with all ICE civil immigration information and detainer requests, including those that target non-criminal undocumented residents, public trust is eroded, immigrants are less likely to cooperate with local law enforcement and are less likely to report serious crimes, thus making the work of local law enforcement more difficult to address serious crimes; and 

8. Whereas, The Belmont Police Department will continue its long-held practice of not asking any individual about immigration status when that individual is seeking help from the police or is stopped for a minor infraction, and will provide assistance and protection to any member of the public without regard to immigration status; and 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1) The Belmont Town Meeting hereby expresses our solidarity with displaced persons and migrants from around the world.

 around the world. Motions for 2017 Belmont Annual Town Meeting Page 2 of 2 

2) The Belmont Town meeting affirms its support for these Belmont Police Department practices: 

(a) Belmont Police officers will not detain persons solely to investigate their immigration status; 

(b) Belmont Police officers will not inquire into the immigration status of persons seeking help from the police unless the information is relevant to prosecuting the reported crime or for the person’s protection; 

(c) The Belmont Police Department will not keep an index or list of persons suspected of being aliens or deportable aliens; 

(d) The Belmont Police Department will not seek to have any officer receive a delegation of the powers of an immigration officer ; 

(e) The Belmont Police Department will cooperate with federal, state, and local criminal and civil investigative agencies in the accomplishment of their lawful objectives by providing such information as the Police Department maintains; 

(f) Upon the presentation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of a detainer and an administrative warrant for the detention of a person arrested by Belmont Police Department in the course of enforcing state and local laws and currently in custody, the Belmont Police Department will maintain custody of the person for sufficient time to bring to the attention of the court officials responsible for decisions upon bail. (The Belmont Police Department will continue this practice until such time as a court with authority over the Belmont Police Department finds the practice to be contrary to law.); and 

(g) The Belmont Police Department will continue to investigate reports of hate crimes, criminal discrimination, and criminal harassment of persons based upon their religion, ethnicity, or national origin without regard to the person’s known or suspected unlawful status within the United States. 

(Majority vote) 

REPORTING: Anne Mahon, Precinct 4, Petitioner

2017 Belmont Town Meeting, Night 3 LIVE

By 2 Comments

Photo: Town Moderator and Town Clerk before tonight’s meeting/

Belmont’s annual Town Meeting reconvenes tonight, Monday, May 8 at 7 p.m. to take up the last warrant articles remaining in the meeting’s first segment.

Those articles are:

  • Article 8: Refer to a study committee the article that would increase the membership of the Board of Selectmen from three to five members.
  • Article 9: Empower the Board of Selectmen to consider all options for waste management in the town, including waste metering such as pay-as-you-throw systems, as part of their ongoing role as financial managers of the town.
  • Article 10: Welcoming Town designation. 

There has been a bit of an exciting time before the meeting as the two sides of the Article 10 issue are holding signs and asking members to vote for or vote down the now controversial non-binding measure which would reiterate the town’s police department policies of not requesting the immigration status of residents who they come in contact with. 

Unofficial word is that Article 10 will be given its day, Wednesday, to be debated. Seems fair.

Mike Widmer, Town Moderator, said the hope was that most people want to see the three articles are completed tonight – to cheers – but with Article 10 be started by 9:30 p.m.

We’ll see.

Jay Marcotte, the DPW director, is giving an update on the town’s solid waste/recycling program. Here is the push for automated trash collection which many towns have transitioned, such as Wakefield. “We are doing well” as a town with unrestricted on the curb collection. There are three collection options before the town: traditional, automated or pay as you throw. Lots of pros and cons. Did you know that a typical Belmont household creates nearly 1,500 lbs of trash annually? Pay as you throw is the best method to limit trash. But there are a lot of cons. The Selectmen will decide the best option by July 2018, a year away.

The first article of the night: Article 8, that called for expanding the number of selectmen from three to five. This is not about expanding the number but purely on the formation of a committee to discuss the matter. The original article is not being debated because it was putting the cart before the horse; the state legislature needs to approve the addition of the members of the board before it can be voted on by the Town Meeting. The original article was a citizen’s petition by Selectman Jim Williams. 

Williams said the benefits of a larger board is now needed because the town is much bigger – $160 million and 460 employees – than a three-member board can accomplish. Williams said the Open Meeting Law limits any discussion on any sort without a formal meeting. “It’s simply not enough time” to do what needs to be done. It’s been proposed in 2002, 2000 and 1967 and many similar-sized towns like Arlington, Lexington and Wellesley have five. Five selectmen will allow for two selectmen to deliberate, speak and communicate. Williams said a five-member board is just more efficient. While there will not be a vote tonight, Williams is seeking a 13-member study board to make a recommendation and a possible town meeting vote in 2018.

Williams created an ad hoc committee with many prominent Town Meeting members to discuss the issue. Jack Weis, Pct. 1, and a member of the ad hoc committee said you would vote on the 

Steve Rosales, Pct. 8, and former Selectman said he wants to nip this in the bud and wants to vote no on the study. He said don’t fix it if it’s not broken. If you have a five-member board, it is a greater likelihood that deals will be done in secret and there will be no debate.

AnnMarie Mahoney, Pct. 8, and former Selectman said there is a concern that a larger board could be done to circumvent the Open Meeting Law. 

The question “Why now?” Williams said he wants to look forward and sees a lot of risks facing Belmont in the next three to five year from a new High School, community path, and his favorite concern, OPEB retirement funding. It’s just more efficient. Claus Becker, Pct. 5, said any company the size of the town is never run by a three-member board. 

Claus Becker, Pct. 5, said any company the size of the town is never run by a three-member board. 

Reed Bundy, Pct. 1, asked if the board could just meet and discuss the issues at any time, which the selectmen said that is an option right now.

The vote has been moved, and the ending of debate was approved. The vote to establish a committee creation is passed 192-67. 

Up now is Article 9, the Pay As You Throw discussion which is not about the issue itself, but about encouraging the selectmen to consider it as a viable option in future contracts.

Kim Slack said he submitted his citizen’s petition as an environmentalist and a fiscal conservative, giving the selectmen more options and leave a cleaner planet.

The issue before the town is the 1990 override which paid for curbside trash collection. And since then, the town has not considered “all options.” Slack said PAYT would be more environmentally sensible and could cut costs which help local financial challenges. Only 11 percent of municipalities have what Slack called “free” curbside collection, a phrase that did not go over well with quite a few members. 

Pat Brusch, Pct. 2, was on the ballot question committee back in 1989, which supported the 1990 override for the collection of solid waste (for $2,094,946) said she has concerns this vote will have a detrimental impact on voters when they are asked to finance other important projects around town.

The debate is a great give and takes between competing concerns: the environment and keeping a promise to past voters. There are 14 members waiting to speak on the issue. 

The question is moved and debate has been terminated 242-22.

And now the motion on article 9: it passes 162-99. It is non-binding.

Now Article 10, Ann Mahon’s citizen’s petition to make Belmont a Welcoming Town. After reading the article, Mahon explains what the article will do including reaffirming current Belmont Police Dept. practices and reaffirm our values as a cohesive communityh that welcomes and accepts without prejudice those of all races, religions and nationalities. 

“Do not listen to rumors or heresay,” said Mahon. It does not make Belmont a sanctuary town or ask Belmont Police not to cooperate with ICE. It will continue Belmont Police Department practices 

“This is a way to unite the town with its police department,” said John Roberts who is speaking  for the article.

About 20 members waiting in line to make comments. 

Three Articles Remain In 1st Half of 2017 Town Meeting

By 2 Comments

Photo: Belmont Town Meeting.

Seven down, three to go as Belmont’s annual Town Meeting convenes tonight, Monday, May 8 at 7 p.m. to take up the last warrant articles remaining in the meeting’s first segment.

Town Meeting is traditionally broken up into two segments, A  and B with the first sessions dealing with non-financial articles – except for the five projects being presented by the Community Preservation Committee.egment B sessions will deal with the financial articles and will be held in June.

Segment B sessions will deal with the financial articles and will be held in June.

The final trio of non-budgetary legislative actions Town Meeting will debate and vote on are:

  • Article 8: Refer to a study committee the article that would increase the membership of the Board of Selectmen from three to five members.
  • Article 9: Empower the Board of Selectmen to consider all options for waste management in the town, including waste metering such as pay-as-you-throw systems, as part of their ongoing role as financial managers of the town.
  • Article 10: Welcoming Town designation. 

Reduced Price Rain Barrels Now On Sale Thru Sustainable Belmont

By 1 Comment

Photo: The rain barrels come in three suburban colors.

It’s Rain Barrel time in Belmont

Again this year, Sustainable Belmont is partnering with the Great American Rain Barrel Company of Hyde Park, to offer rain barrels to residents at nearly half the retail cost.

“Last summer’s drought was a wake up call that every drop of water is precious. We’re offering this program to help manage rising water costs and save vegetation from drought conditions,” says Amanda Mujica, a volunteer with Sustainable Belmont.

“Rain barrels are an effective way to collect and save water… and plants love unchlorinated rain water.” Barrels are easily connected to the downspouts and fill quickly, resulting in a significant source of water that homeowners could be tapping into for free.

Residents that use a rain barrel collect as much as 1,500 gallons in a season. This will save existing or new landscaping when a dry spell hits and supplement outdoor water usage, which spikes during the growing season. 

Just keeping a small 10’ x 10’ garden irrigated during the summer months can mean using up to 1,700 gallons of water. Based on the average roof size, more than two 60 gallon rain barrels would fill for every fifth of the inch of rainfall. The Great American Rain Barrel Company recommends one barrel for every 100 square feet garden. Multiple barrels are easily linked together for additional collection and storage.

The barrels are offered in three colors; Forest Green, Earth Brown or Nantucket Gray at the low cost of $69; 40 percent off the retail price of $119. Belmont buyers benefit from an additional savings of $10 because Sustainable Belmont volunteers are handling the distribution. The barrels are made from recycled food shipping containers.

Mujica will be at the Belmont Farmer’s Markets on June 8 and 15 with a Rain Barrel and Composter display. If you’re curious and want to learn more about integrating rain barrels and composters into your gardening, stop by. The Belmont Farmer’s Market is from 2 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Belmont Center in the Clafin Municipal Parking Lot.

To take advantage of this offer please visit the company’s website, click on “Community Programs” and look for “Belmont” or contact via email info@tgarb.com, or phone 800-251-2352.

Prepaid barrels will be available for pick up on Saturday, June 24, from 9 a.m. to 11:00pm at the Belmont DPW parking Lot, C Street.

2017 Belmont Town Meeting, Night 2, Special Town Meeting LIVE

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Town meeting again.

Hello to the second night of the annual Belmont Town Meeting at Belmont High School. 

Tonight’s topics will be booze, pot and the CPA with a special town meeting called to vote on changes to the town’s liquid licensing bylaw concerning transfer of licenses than a vote supporting a temporary moratorium on retail sales of marijuana and finally votes to approve or deny items on the Community Preservation Committee’s request list.

7:09 p.m.: We are starting a bit late, even for Belmont, which starts every meeting five minutes past the scheduled start time. 

Moderator Mike Widmer is explaining why he will not allow non-Town Meeting members to speak on Article 10, the Welcoming Town article. Belmont has representative Town Meeting, and so each member can not just express their opinion but also members in their precincts. 

First up tonight is Bill Lovallo who is speaking on the Belmont High School Building Committee. You can go here to see where the building committee is at this time. Some news is made tonight as Lovallo said the committee would select one of the three configurations which will be studied by this time in 2018. 

7:25 p.m.: Article 6, the temporary moratorium of establishing retail marijuana operations, is being read and explained. This isn’t a controversial article, as the town is following the state in asking for a 6-month delay to July 1, 2018, in creating a bylaw on the rules and regulations for the sale of recreational marijuana.

7:30 p.m.: The Special Town Meeting is being convened concerning the transfer of all-alcohol licenses. Widmer said the focus of the two articles would NOT be the relitigation of why we are here. i.e., the Loading Dock, but on the feasibility of the new rules.

Selectman Mark Paolillo, who is presenting the articles, explains that in 2013, the town made an oversight that the non-transferability language in previous all alcohol licenses, was mistakenly not added on six new licenses. The selectmen always wanted to grant licenses to enhance businesses, never to be a windfall or an asset for the businesses.

Under the articles, all licenses will be non-transferable. If Town Meeting approves, the measure will need legislative approval. Until then, all licenses are transferable. Why make restaurant licenses also non-transferable? Just for uniformity. 

Restaurant licenses provide viability to the business community, nothing more.

Tomi Olson, Pct. 5, and chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee is seeking to amend the first article by adding the phase “for use at any other location.” 

Erin Luben, a member of EDAC, who wrote the amendments, believe the town should allow transferability of licenses because owners may need to sell a license to leave a business or simply sell it. No one would buy a restaurant or store that sells liquor/beer/wine. What the articles would do is undermine businesses in town. The new language will allow a business to sell it to a new owner at the same location or bringing it to a new site. That is pro-business.

Ralph Jones, Pct. 3. is opposing the new language since it makes a license an economic asset. It should not be bought or sold. We want to avoid what occurred in 2016, and we want clear language. The Olson/Luben amendment will muddy the waters. The important concept is that the amendment allows decisions to be decided by business owners and not the town. 

Anne Marie Mahoney, Pct. 8, said as a former selectman who granted the licenses made a compact with the town that the licenses would not be a commodity for large corporations that buys and sells and could lead to corruption as seen in other locations in the state.

Dr. David Alper, Pct 6, said that food licenses are not transferable and why should it be. 

George Hall, town counsel, said with transferability, the business owner selects who can buy the license. If it goes back to the town, there is a far greater number of entities who can apply for the license, so it’s far more fair. 

Jim Williams, Selectman, said Town Meeting has a goldilocks choice, either no transferability, full transferability or something in-between. Williams said he voted in favor of the amendments because it can promote business activity.

Adam Dash, said the words of the amendments are very small but the effect is very large. It’s in Belmont’s best interest to have a larger number of buyers rather than who the business wants. He said the amendment is actually anti-business as it limits the number of businesses which can seek the license. 

Roy Epstein, Warrant Committee, said there are many gray areas with businesses – a parent selling to a child, change the location to increase business etc. – so he is willing to approve the amendments and hope that nothing really bad happens.

The question has been moved to suspend debate and it passes easily. So after the introduction of the article, the amendment and debate: exactly 90 minutes. 

The vote on the amendment by Tomi Olson. 37 to 226. Defeated.

Finally, a vote on the first amendment on requesting the legislature to end transferability for retail all liquor licenses: 244-18 in favor. 

9:30 p.m.: Now up is to end transferability of the 26 restaurant – also known as pour – licenses. There are 13 licenses currently held by business owners. It passes 223-19.

9:40 p.m.: Up now is the marijuana moratorium which delays by 6 months until June 31, 2018 when the town is required to have a permitting process and a bylaw on where a retail business can be located. This article follows the state’s 6-month delay on the creation of a state control board.

Don Mercier, Pct. 8, requested the delay be increased to June 30, 2019. Widmer said that was too substantial a change and is rejected. 

Article 6 passes on a voice vote.

9:55 p.m.: Now up is the annual CPC projects, numbering five this year. This should go by quickly.

With Treasurer Floyd Carman leading the way, the projects are:

$336,000 to restore the Grove Street tennis courts. Approved by voice vote.

$173,200 to repair and restore portions of Sherman Garden. Approved by voice vote.

$24,125 to preserve historical artifacts and create a mini-museum at the Sons of Italy state headquarters which is located on Concord Avenue. Bob McLaughlin, Pct. 2, said while he loves this sort of project, it’s not a Belmont project. By OK-ing this one, how do you deny any other ethnic organizations? Crowley said he had is own forgiving but this is an important cultural 

Commentary: Differing, Compelling Views on the ‘Welcoming Town’ Article

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Jim Williams (left), Dan Vernick
Editor’s note: Below is an email conversation between Board of Selectmen Chair Jim Williams and Town Meeting Member Daniel Vernick. The exchange began when Williams wrote to the community why and how he would vote on Article 10, the citizen’s petition by Anne Mahon on making Belmont a “Welcoming Community.” Vernick responded to Williams statement which the Selectmen reciprocated. In a time in our country when contrasting political views are likely to result in flaming, profane comments, the viewpoints by each Town Meeting member were treated with respect and understanding.
Jim Williams
To the community:
The BOS  voted favorable 2-1 on Article 10 at the May 1, Board of Selectmen Open Meeting with myself casting the minority unfavorable vote. So, I’ve decided to report my vote and the reasons for it in writing in advance of the report of the BOS vote at Town Meeting for public consideration:
  1. I respect Anne Mahon and the idea that the Town should express its compassion on the  topic.
  2. I understand (and cheer) her right to put forth a citizen’s petition for consideration by Town Meeting.
  3. I understand what’s proposed is not what is widely understood to be a sanctuary city or even a welcoming city as both of these  can include resolutions concerning local enforcement of federal immigration laws, 
  4. I have a deep appreciation for  Anne and the Police Department Command for the work done by the public safety statements rendering them accurately factual, thus neutral politically.

However,

  1. Belmont has already declared itself a “welcoming community” in its Town of Belmont Comprehensive Plan 2010-2020 pps. 1, 5, and 22.
  2. Also, the Vision 21 Implementation Committee report dated April 2015 mentions the idea of welcoming 80 times in the document albeit many instances relate to the surveys reported therein.  
  3. The Town conducts its affairs within the rule of law, and the BOS conducts the general direction and management of the property and affairs of the Town not otherwise provided for law and the Town bylaws for the common good. 
  4. The inclusion of a reference to public safety procedures can create for some a false impression that Belmont has declared itself a sanctuary or welcoming city or town or has joined a network of sanctuary or welcoming towns that,  in fact,  is not proposed by the motion or article.
Therefore, 
  • I am unfavorable to the motion as proposed given its redundancy, the need for all parties and agents of the Town to conduct  Town affairs within the rule of law and the common good, and the probability of a false public impression about the intent of the motion of approved.
Instead, 
  • I would propose that the BOS  commits to Town Meeting that it will charge the Vision 21 Committee with the task of updating a 2020-30  Comprehensive Plan for the Town.
Best regards,
Jim Williams
Chairman, Board of Selectmen

 

From Daniel Vernick

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the explanation – a couple of points in response:

  • Anne Mahon is one member of a broad coalition of Belmontians pushing for this Welcoming Town resolution. It was written not only by Anne but also with the help of many other TMMs, as well as the Police Department, Belmont Against Racism, and others. You make many points about how you “respect Anne Mahon” – but this resolution is not about Anne Mahon. It’s about making sure that Belmont’s immigrant community feels safe and welcome, and there is a broad coalition of Belmontians from numerous groups across town that have been working on this. 
  • You mention the town needing to conduct itself “within the rule of law.” Not only is Article 10 within the rule of law, it simply reaffirms the standard BPD policy that has been in place for years. Passage will not change any policy but will send a message that everyone is welcome in Belmont regardless of race, ethnicity, or immigration status. 
  • I am confused about your claim that this creates a false impression that Belmont has declared itself a sanctuary town. I will be the first to tell you that Article 10 (unfortunately) does not come anywhere near making Belmont a sanctuary town. But it’s a step in the right direction. 
  • The Vision 21 report, as you mentioned, was in 2015 – that’s before the Trump administration’s immigration orders have caused widespread fear among immigrants and people of color, as well as a sharp rise in hate speech and hate crimes. This resolution is needed to publicly reaffirm Belmont’s policies and values so that no one who lives or works in our community has to feel unsafe or fearful.
  • Similar resolutions have been passed by many other towns, including nearby Waltham, Concord, Newton, and Arlington. Most of those resolutions have been far more comprehensive than Belmont’s resolution. Every nearby city and town that has recently considered a similar resolution have passed it. If the resolution fails, Belmont will stand out as the only town in Greater Boston to reject a Welcoming Town resolution. 
  • I am confused by this statement: “I am unfavorable to the motion as proposed given its redundancy, the need by all parties and agents of the Town to conduct Town affairs within the rule of law and common good, and the probability  of a  public false impression about the intent of the motion of approved.” The exact opposite is true; this is absolutely within the rule of law, is essential to the common good, and the impression it gives to the public is that Belmont welcomes immigrants and that no one should have to live in fear. I am confused as to what you are referring to in these sentences.
  • I wish that we had a far more comprehensive resolution that would have made Belmont a full-fledged sanctuary town, but unfortunately, that is not the case – this resolution is purely symbolic and does not change any existing policies. It does, however, send a message to immigrants who live or work in Belmont that their community supports them and that they are welcome regardless of race, ethnicity, or immigration status.
This is not and should not be a partisan issue – all sides should agree on this resolution, which is extremely watered down and purely symbolic, as simply a statement of Belmont’s values. 
I am happy to discuss this further. I hope that you understand how detrimental the failure of this resolution would be to the emotional wellbeing of our immigrants, people of color, Muslim community (for instance, Muslim students being bullied at Chenery), and to our reputation as a town. I welcome you to reconsider your position.
Best,
Daniel Vernick
TMM Precinct 1
Jim Williams
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your email. At least,  you care enough to engage. Otherwise, here is my initial reaction to your comments: 

  1. Amongst many other things, I am a Belmontonian as well, and I don’t agree with the motion for the reasons I’ve put forth in writing.
  2. It is always possible that well-intentioned people can be working on bad policy,  yet that fact doesn’t necessarily validate a particular point of view as history has shown over and over again. 
  3. Article 10 did not start out within the rule of law from what I know of it. The Police Command and Selectman Mark Palilllo worked with Anne (who we all know which is important to understand)  to bring the motion into a neutral political space for the common good and so the motion could pass without rancor.  
  4. Great strategy to enable all to vote unanimously in favor except that it will be predictably understood by the wider public to support policies it doesn’t support which does not serve   Belmont’s common good which I have sworn to uphold.
  5. Hence, my opinion and the elephant question of “why do it” at all?.
As for the rest of your commentary, you simply say because you disagree I should agree with you. I’m going to need more than your word on that. I think we need to have more dialogue when we can if you like as I always stand to be corrected. 
Best, 
Jim 

Belmont Day School, Residents Waiting on Dover Decision

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Residents at the Planning Board meeting Tuesday night.

The Board of Selectmen’s Room in Belmont’s Town Hall was stuffed to the rafters with residents Tuesday night, May 2 as the Planning Board reopened the public hearing to hear from both sides of a now controversial development planned at a private school on Belmont Hill.

By the end of the 90-minute meeting, it was apparent the Planning Board’s next step rests on a legal interpretation by Belmont Town Counsel George Hall whether the Belmont Day School could be required to undertake a pair of potentially time-consuming and expensive independent reviews of the impact the proposed develop could have on local traffic levels and stormwater.

The Belmont Planning Board.

It is an action the Day School’s legal representative considers mute due to the state General Law 40a (3) (2) – known as the Dover Amendment – protecting education and religious entities from land use regulations; the same legal standard used more than two decades ago to build another contentious project in town, the Boston LDS Temple.

“We need to bear in mind the Dover Amendment, which means in situations like this, where there is a proposal to build a structure for an educational purpose, we are limited to imposing reasonable regulations,” said Acting Planning Board Chair Barbara Fiacco of the construction of an indoor gym/classroom space and a new road/driveway at the Day School, a private kindergarten/elementary/middle school located off Concord Avenue on Day School Lane.

The Day School has reported it would want construction on the project to begin in the fall of 2017 with a September 2018 opening.

Speaking of the Day School, Kelly Durfee Cardoza from Avalon Consulting opened the meeting telling the board the school had met with abutters and carefully attempted to address some issues immediately such as moving a dumpster away from the border with the town’s cemetery. 

Kelly Durfee Cardoza, Avalon Consulting

Cardoza also told the board the school would introduce a Transportation Demand Plan which when implemented would use a series of actions such as car pooling, traffic monitoring, establishing a commuter ride system and stagger arrival and departures to reduce the level of traffic to and from the school.

The two camps opposing the Day School’s plans – reportedly the two groups have no intention of joining their efforts due to longstanding animosity among certain neighbors – believe the construction of what is being dubbed “The Barn” will increase enrollment and subsequently bring additional vehicle traffic onto the section of Concord Avenue which residents note is jammed during the morning and evening rush to work and home.

Opponents also believe a new access road/driveway into the school off Concord Avenue will lead to unsafe driving conditions, possible drainage issues and disturb those visiting the town’s Highland Cemetery.

One group has hired an independent traffic consultant, Robert Vanasse of Vanasse & Associates, Inc. who told the board the Day School’s traffic study is insufficient in several areas of concern, including not mentioning the weekday half-mile queue of cars on Concord Avenue in the morning and afternoon, the causes of accidents in the vicinity of the school, and the high rate of speed along the roadway.

Robert Vanasse, Vanasse & Associates

Vanasse said while he was not opposed to having the new roadway to the school to be used for “emergencies only,” adding a new intersection on busy Concord Avenue.

Also, the town’s Cemetery Commission has written to the Planning Board on its concerns about stormwater, traffic and the loss of what many are calling “the decorum” of those who purchased plots in the graveyard as traffic on the new roadway will be mere feet from the site.

Stormwater management was also questioned whether the current infrastructure would be able to support a new road which would direct rainwater and snow runoff. 

But standing in the opponent’s attempts to restrict the effects of the new construction is how wide the Dover Amendment protects the Day School’s rights.

“The board should think carefully about whether they have the authority to request a peer review for the traffic study both under your site plan review bylaw and under the Dover Amendment” as both only allows for a review of “internal” traffic – within the school property – and not offsite matters, said Robinson & Cole’s Katherine Bailey.

Robinson & Cole’s Katherine Bailey

After a limited number of residents spoke mostly in favor of the school’s expansion, the Planning Board brought their own set of questions, including from the Board’s Raffi Manjikian who quired whether the school had an operation maintenance plan to ensure the previous material under the roadway will not fail after a limited number of years. 

Many of the questions posed by the Planning Board were seeking assurances from the Day School it would have plans in place and programs ready to meet all contingency issues regarding the main concerns of traffic, stormwater and being neighborly to the town’s cemetery. 

While the issue of requiring a third party peer review remained only conjecture at the meeting, Board member Joseph DeStefano asked the Day School to voluntarily submit to the second audit “as being part of this community” rather than seek legal advice from the town counsel.

When Fiacco said she wanted to hear from Hall on the board’s right to require the review, Bailey asked, “in the interest of timeliness” if the Day School could join in that discussion outside the public meeting.

If Hall decided a peer review is warranted, Bailey asked if the review could be started before the next public meeting “so to keep the process moving.” Fiacco tentatively agreed to the request if a Planning Board representative is present. 

Since the Planning Board determined at the beginning of the meeting it would not make a final decision; the next public meeting will be reopened on Tuesday, May 23.

Sports : Girls’ Rugby First-Ever Varsity Home Game a Memorable Tie

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Georgia Parsons of Belmont High’s Girls’ Rugby squad.

Kate McCabe could finally smile only after the game recalling the final seconds of the historic first ever girls rugby match at Belmont High School.

A fullback from Algonquin Regional High School had turned the corner beyond the Belmont defenders and was heading full bore for the Marauders’ end zone, looking to break a tie game with a stunning run to glory.

But there would be no miracle finish for the T-Hawks as a pair of Marauders had the angle on the back and pushed her out of bounds 20 meters short of the try line, ending the game.

“That was close!” said McCabe, the Belmont High School social studies teacher and Belmont’s girls’ rugby head coach since the team’s inception as a club sport in 2015.

On a misty late evening under the lights of Harris Field, Belmont High and Algonquin Regional settled for a 12-12 tie in the first-ever MIAA sanctioned girls’ rugby contest in Belmont, serving as the inaugural varsity match at the school.

The MIAA – Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association – is the governing body that supervises high school sports in the state. Before this season, rugby was club sport at schools and regionally. 

“I am so proud of the girls tonight,” said McCabe, who started four years at Boston University and was on the Boston Women’s Rugby Club before entering coaching. Despite missing two flybacks and another starter, “[Belmont] played an outstanding game despite the rain” which caused a number of miscues (for both teams) that hampered the game.

This first season of girls rugby under the guise of the MIAA sees three schools – Algonquin Regional High School (Southboro and Northboro), Lincoln-Sudbury Regional and Belmont – with past playing experience competing on the varsity level as other schools, such as Newton North, are creating their own programs.

Algonquin is the most experienced of the playing team, having won the Massachusetts Youth Rugby Organization’s State championship from 2011 to 2014 while Lincoln-Sudbury was victorious in 2016, beating Belmont in the semi-finals.

This year, Belmont defeated Lincoln-Sudbury in its first-ever MIAA girls game and after the tie with Algonquin, the T-Hawks (which defeated L-S, 5-0, in its first go around) and Marauders are both standing at 1-0-1.

The match itself was a bruising affair with Belmont’s strength from the ruck and maul pressured Algonquin, which countered with sharp passing and skillful tackling – led by player of the match ARHS’s senior Sam Dickie – especially close to the try (goal) line. Three times Belmont was within 10 meters of scoring a try (worth five points) but were stopped by Algonquin’s solid defense or by mistakes on their part.

Algonquin’s pressure offense, using quick passes and counter running, earned it the first two tries of the match, building a 12-0 lead. Belmont cut the lead to 12-5 when senior Georgia Parsons – a three-year varsity goalie for the girls’ soccer team – bulldozed her way for a try after the 35 minute half had expired. (In rugby, a half or the game only ends when the ball is kicked, or a player is dragged out-of-bounds.)

The second half saw Algonquin being to feel the effects of Belmont’s punishing runs into the center and experience in the scrum, ultimately resulting in sophomore Claire Martin crossing the line for Belmont’s second try. Parson’s secured the two-point conversion with a well-struck kick through the center of the uprights.

Both teams had their chances in the final 20 minutes with Belmont coming ever so close in the last two minutes only to see a wet ball bound away within 10 meters of the try line in the final two minutes.

As with any rugby match, there was the rash of knock-on injuries, a bloody nose, a painful dislocated finger and the need for many bags of ice. But after the match, it was also time for players who are teammates on club sports to exchange greetings, coaches to discuss the game and the sharing of pizza. 

2017 Belmont Town Meeting, Night 1 LIVE

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Town Meeting

And welcome to the first night of the 2017 annual Belmont Town Meeting being held in the Belmont High School auditorium, Monday, on May Day.

I have been told by Town Clerk Ellen Cushman that tonight’s meeting will attempt to vote on the first six articles in the warrant. That will include setting a standard 25 mph speed limit throughout town (article 3), revamp the Demolition Delay Bylaw (Article 4), update and codify a “signs” bylaw (Article 5) and accepting a temporary moratorium on the establishment of retail marijuana stores in town (article 6).

7:05 p.m.: Town Moderator Mike Widmer calls the meeting to order. The invocation is read by Pastor Cheryl Minor of All Saints Church.Boy Scouts Troops 304 and 377 along with Girl Scouts from Troops 62578, 79207, 85470 and 72490 present the flag while Girl Scouty Clarice O’Neil, a Butler 2nd grader, leads the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance. The national anthem is sung by the Belmont High School senior A Capella.

7:22 p.m.: The new and re-elected town meeting members are sworn in by Town Clerk Cushman.

The Town Meeting honors the long-serving members. Mark D’Andrea (44 years) gives some practical advice to Town Meeting: Speak up when you come to the microphone.

7:28 p.m. A wonderful appreciation of Ruth Kaplan, who died at 98 in February.

7:30 p.m.: Town Moderator Mike Widmer said that there is “significant confusion” about the difference between an article and the motion. He also spoke about “scope” of an article under debate. It will be important when getting to articles such as pay as you throw and the Welcoming Town amendment. It will not be a debate about the Trump administration and its policies or be making any conjecture on the impact on the town’s finances by passing the article, he said. 

7:40 p.m.: And we are underway: Article 3 which is the speed limit article. Should Belmont reduce the “statutory speed limit” in thickly settled areas (basically all but three stretches or road in Belmont) or where there are special speed regulation; about 12 streets such as Goden, Lexington, School, and Clifton, to 25 mph.

Discussion: (lots of members already in line on this one) Joel Semuels, Pct. 6, worries that a minor traffic ticket could cause a $200 surcharge for six years on their insurance. Glenn Clancy, director of Office of Community Development, basically admits that the police has a great deal of “discretion” on giving tickets, admitting that if you are going just a bit over the speed limit, it’s unlikely you’ll be getting a ticket.

Bob McLaughlin, Pct. 2, (a proud owner of a Porsche) said he wished he could travel faster than second gear. He said he didn’t believe raising five mph isn’t that much safer. “What governs best, governs least.”

Rachel Berger, Pct. 2, while supporting the amendment, believes that it is enforcement not speed limit that will make roads safer.

Sue Bass, Pct. 3, agrees that it’s is enforcement that is important, especially signs that tell the speed limit.  She would also like to see more raised crosswalks.

Clancy said many communities are taking action in reducing speed limits which he believes will “recondition” how drivers throughout the region to drive at lower speeds, and if it takes ten years, will make roads safer.

Brooke McKenna, Pct 5, said lowering the speed limit may “not be a perfect solution,” – there could be more enforcement – but it is the first step towards safer roads. Slower speeds would result in higher survivability rates to victims of car accidents 

Paul Roberts, Pct. 8, said the way roads are used have changed – more bikes and pedestrians sharing the road – and smartphones putting more cut-through traffic onto local roads. “Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.”

Corinne Olmsted. Pct. 1, also brings up the issue of cut-through traffic that is sent through Belmont via traffic-avoidance software. Reducing the speed limit could make the town less attractive to those drivers.

Jack Weis, Pct. 1, said he’s opposing the amendment because it’s a “one size fits all” solution which doesn’t work on the major “commuter” roads that crisscross the town. If drivers don’t believe the speed is “practical” they will see how much above the limit they can go.

The question has been moved! One hour of debate. Whew!

And for some reason the vote was not registered, which had one member quip, “It’s the Russians.” 

So we go to a voice vote. It’s almost quaint to hear the yeas and nays. And the ayes have it. The speed limit in Belmont will soon be 25 mph with a few exceptions.

Next up, the Demolition Delay Bylaw amendment. Widmer reminds anyone who has a financial interest in a property impacted by the bylaw must mention it.

The bylaw, which originally passed in 2013, is being renewed due to a sunset clause. It only applies  to a limit number (182) of specific buildings, there is an appeals process, and it does not prevent demolitions, said Lauren Meier, the co-chair of the Historic District Commission. The most significant change is increasing the term of the delay from 6 to 12 months. “It’s not an undue financial burden,” Meier said.

You can read about the 2017 bylaw here.The Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board gave unanimous support to the renewal of the bylaw.

Some real opposition to the amendment by several members – many who opposed the bylaw in 2013 – who are aspirated by increasing to 12 months the delay.

The complains includes a restraint of private property rights, using the bylaw as a “lever” against a homeowner, there is a financial penalty on the property and, really, if some developer wants to tear down a historic building, he’ll just thumb their nose at the town, six months vs. 12 months. Meier said the bylaw isn’t perfect but it does give public notice and provides the community a way to have a voice on these issues. Good give and take on an issue that effects only two percent of the housing stock.

The motion called and here is the vote: 183 to 72 in favor – the bylaw passes.

9:55 p.m.: Now the “signs” amendment, sponsored by the Planning Board. Barbara Fiacco, vice chair of the Planning Board, presents the amendments briefly to the old bylaw which are 30 years old. Standing signs would be reduced to being no more than five feet high; window signs would be reduced from 50 percent to 20 percent of the total window area; there was no regulations and awnings and sandwich board sign; temporary signs will be reduced for 60 days; flashing signs and string of lights would be prohibited and you will have to maintain your sign. Non-commercial signs would be allowed in all zoning areas just to keep in within a recent Supreme Court ruling. What’s non-commercial? Schools, non-profits, religious 

Small business owners and some members feel some of the restrictions – strings of lights, a sign saying “Drive slow” – are nitpicking. What about those commercial signs for landscaping firms in the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street – known as the town’s right of way? It now has to be removed after 90 days or after the work is done, whatever is shorter. 

Vince Stanton, Pct. 3, then Bob McGaw, Pct. 1 and later Jack Weis, Pct. 1, were acting as copyeditors to the article, changing the wording for clarity.

What about the farmers market? The smaller ones in people’s yards have to be taken away after 90 days (it’s currently 100 days). 

Finally the questions end and the vote takes place. And it’s a big “Yes” margin, 186 – 46.

The meeting is now adjourned until Wednesday, May 3.