Cushing Village Update: Municipal Lot Closed To Public Wednesday

By Leave a Comment

Photo: From parking lot to construction site.

In the first tangible indication construction on the long delayed Cushing Village development is about to commence, signs notified the public the municipal parking lot adjacent Starbucks was official closed to vehicles.

“THIS PARKING LOT Located on the corner of TRAPELO ROAD and WILLISTON ROAD WILL BE CLOSED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 18th, 2017” read several signs in the near empty lot.

img_5541

At the Williston Road entry, another sign said “Construction Entrance Only” and “Lot Closed 1/18/17,” placed by Nauset Construction, the Needham-base constructon management firm hired by the project’s national developer, Toll Brothers. 

Toll Brothers officially took possession of the town-owned lot on Oct. 19, 2016 after purchasing the parcel for $1.335 million, according to town records.

Despite assurances the lot would be closed within days of the sale, it would take three additional months for the Pennylvania-based Apartment Living subsidiary to secure the first of several permits from the town and state’s environmental protection agency to allow construction to precede and to finalize a long-term lease with Starbucks to secure a space in the project.

Cushing Villiage is a 165,000 square foot, three building development with approximately 38,000 square feet of commercial space, 115 apartments – 60 two-bedroom units and 55 one-bedroom units – and 225 parking spaces including 50 municipal spaces.

Bill Lovett, a senior development manager at Toll Brothers’ Apartment Living, said in August the earliest date for construction to begin on Cushing Village is late spring of 2017 with a completion date of the summer of 2019.

Sold in Belmont: A Pair of Million Dollar Splits That Took Different Tacks

By Leave a Comment

Photo: A highlight of smart, architectural sensitive renovation in a split level in the Winn Brook.

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-10-31-21-pm

• 58 Crestview Rd., Split-level ranch (1959/2016 renovation). Sold: $1,500,000. Listed at $1,775,000. Living area: 4,200 sq.-ft. 7 rooms, 5 bedrooms, 4.5 baths. On the market: 79 days.

screen-shot-2017-01-15-at-9-54-03-pm

• 544 Trapelo Rd., Two-family (1890). Sold: $680,000. Listed at $699,999. Living area: 1,747 sq.-ft. 10 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 157 days.

screen-shot-2017-01-15-at-10-01-13-pm

• 61 Hoitt Rd., Split-level ranch (1957). Sold: $1,100,000. Listed at $1,100,000. Living area: 1,962 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 95 days.

screen-shot-2017-01-15-at-10-21-57-pm

• 66-68 Chester Rd., Two-family (1917). Sold: $1,100,000. Listed at $1,025,000. Living area: 1,747 sq.-ft. 14 rooms, 6 bedrooms, 3 baths. On the market: 67 days.

After WWII, the rapidly growing middle class was seeking to leave the urban neighborhood and move to the expanding suburbs to find new homes with a modern design that wouldn’t cost an arm and a leg. Into that void came the Ranch, the sprawling single family with its long, close-to-the-ground outline, and wide open layout inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie homes. You can see many great examples of this architectural design on Belmont Hill, notably on Spring Valley Road. The design doesn’t particularly work well in New England: it’s best located in a flat landscape with few trees allowing sunlight to filter in which is hampered by the hills and wooded areas of the Northeast.

But by the 1970s, the design grew out of favor – the lack of natural light and the “wide-open spaces” of the run-on rooms – as hybrid postmodern homes with cathedral ceilings, skylights, island cooktops, and other ugly features dominated the demands of homebuyers.

In the past week, a pair of ranches, split-levels with upper “private” (bedrooms and baths) and lower “public” (living room/kitchen/dining rooms) levels, were sold taking different tacks to get to a seven-figure sales price.

On Crestview Road, the 57-year-old split was given an extensive makeover by the developer who bought the house for $1,025,000 million in August 2015 to flip it. He dropped $178,807 into the structure, adding nearly 1,300 sq.-ft. (the size of a two-bed condominium) with an expanded and renovated kitchen (with quartz counter tops!) with a pair of dishwashers (Two dishwashers?). But likely done anticipating what buyers would want, the developer added a vaulted ceiling in the living area which destroys the architectural integrity of the ranch design.

screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-1-15-51-pm screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-1-16-10-pm screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-1-16-23-pm screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-1-16-47-pm

With an assessed value of $1.36 million, the developer rolled the dice and marketed the place for an ambitious $1,775,000. But soon someone named “The slowing local real estate market” – Boston has dropped out of the top 20 strongest residential locations in the US at the end of ’16 – told the developer he was still selling a ranch. Soon the listing price fell three times by October to $1,575,000. And he still took a haircut on the final price of $1.5 million. Profit, but more of a razor-thin margin.

The ranch on Hoitt Road in the Winn Brook neighborhood – a block from the school – also saw a $34,000 kitchen renovation in 2013/14 that included a center island, custom cabinets, new appliances and … quartz counter tops! A trend worth praising.

screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-12-31-04-pm

But rather than blow up the rooms, the updates in the “public” areas were faithful to the split-level history, keeping the architectural details – ornamental iron railing, flat brick fireplace, high windows – during the makeover. The highlight is expanding the patio into a three-season living space (what a great way to use the patio’s support beams as an aesthetic focus) opening up into the living room. 

screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-12-30-27-pm screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-12-30-48-pm screen-shot-2017-01-17-at-12-31-17-pm

Purchased for $700,000 in ’11, listed and sold at $1.1 million.

Selectmen OK Loading Dock Alcohol License With Conditions

By 3 Comments

Photo: Faud Mukarker (right) before the Board of Selectmen

After a sometimes contentious meeting which appeared an agreement would unravel before one could be struck, the Belmont Board of Selectmen voted unanimously on Monday, Jan. 9 to grant a “pour” alcohol license to Faud Mukarker, owner of The Loading Dock on Brighton Street.

But the approval came with two significant conditions imposed on the permit, preconditions the board required of Mukarker who only four months previous transferred an all-alcohol retail license for a $400,000 “compensation fee” to regional supermarket chain Star Market.

Under the conditions accepted by Mukarker, the business is required to pay $11,000 in back payments he owes to Belmont Light, the town’s electrical utility, and he will accept the decision of a Special Town Meeting likely scheduled for February if the 290-member legislative body approves a complete ban on transferring alcohol licenses or the use as collateral in securing loans.

After the meeting, Mukarker appeared more relieved than pleased leaving the hour and 20-minute marathon hearing.

“I am happy we got the license,” said Mukarker after the decision, who said the “pour” license was critical to his operation surviving financially.

He also said “I will follow anything the [Special Town] Meeting decides” on transferability.

But crafting the agreement was anything but a smooth journey. After an hour of hearing public comments and the give and take between the board and Mukarker and his team, the first attempt at a consensus to move forward took the business owner and his supporters by surprise.

Mukarker began the meeting by pledging not to transfer the license for two years and not use it as a guarantee for collateral for one year. But those bans were less than airtight as he wanted a mechanism to return to the board during the time of the voluntary restriction to ask to lift the prohibition.

The public was divided in its support for and opposition to the proposal. Elizabeth Dionne of Wellesley Road said Mukarker had shown bad faith with the sale of the previous license which was used to pay off a mountain of bills.

“If he does not have a viable business, you do not have any business granting him another license,” she told the board.

Kenny Hamilton, who described himself as the “The Loading Dock’s consulting CFO” and “right-hand man,” said Mukarker was “always” seeking a pouring license since a Small Business Administration loan which was part of the firm’s refinancing program required the owner having one.

“So the viability of the business has always been there,” said Hamilton, demonstrated by the business surviving 16 months without selling alcohol to customers.

“I know for a fact that Mr. Mukarker feels very badly about the stress he put on the selectmen … and the citizens of the town,” said Hamiliton. “So the idea how he won the lottery … that is not the case.”

Hamilton, who said he “guided the finances” of the business, did provide interesting financial information concerning the business including that the renovation of the former White Hen Pantry into the new eatery cost Mukarker $3 million, with the owner spending $1 million from his pocket.

But it was revealed Mukarker was playing with a weak hand as information of his financial issues were laid out on the table. Town sources report the Loading Dock being $11,000 in arrears to the town for an unpaid electric bill and has been placed by the utility on a long-term payment plan to begin chipping away at the debt.

Second was the restaurant had yet to close on the Small Business Administration loan to pay for outstanding bills despite telling the board it was all but finalized. Also, the $400,000 from Star Market had yet to be delivered to Mukarker.

Finally, Hamilton noted the business’ original lender, Leader Bank, “did not have faith in the project” which required Murkarker to accept a plan designed by Eastern Bank to continue running the retail/restaurant store.

For Selectman Chair Mark Paolillo and his vice chair Sami Baghdady, the concerns of the business’ financial viability and Mukarker’s past action with the retail license allowed them to play hardball with the business.

“My concern is that without any restriction, what happens if God forbid if you go bankrupt? If the SBA loan doesn’t close?” said Baghdady.

The first counteroffer by Baghdady to Murkarker took the breath away from The Loading Dock supporters: withdraw the application and reapply in six months during which time the business would close on all the loans and other issues.

“Regarding transferability, we need the guidance of Town Meeting,” said Baghdady.

During the period without a permit, the restaurant would “have alternatives” said Baghdady, including to serve alcohol from customers who brought their bottles – under a “BYOB” provision in state law – and request one-day liquor licenses.

Under that scheme, the sensitive issue of transferability would not be a problem, said both Baghdady and Paolillo.

Murkarker and Hamilton issued a complaint that the board’s initial plan would place the restaurant’s future in jeopardy while Hamilton said bank and SBA loans would need to be “redone” creating an even greater time delay.

Selectman Jim Williams came to Murkarker’s defense, saying the limitations on the licenses were anti-business.

It had taken another 10 minutes before the selectmen arrived at the compromise of Murkarker making his electrical bill whole and accept the vote of the Special Town Meeting.

“Sometimes coming to an agreement that everyone can agree to is a little messy,” said Baghdady.

Selectman To Solicit No Transfer Vow As Loading Dock Seeks New Alcohol License

By Leave a Comment

Photo: At the initial meeting on the transfer of a full alcohol license with Selectmen Williams (left) and Paolillo.

The Loading Dock‘s owner Faud Mukarker will be before the Belmont Board of Selectman on Monday seeking a second town-issued alcohol license for his Brighton Street establishment, coming less than four months after his controversial transfer of his town-issued retail all-alcohol liquor license for a $400,000 “compensation fee” to the regional supermarket chain Star Market.

And when the Belmont businessman makes his request before the board at its Jan. 9 meeting, one selectman will be asking Mukarker to voluntarily place a “no transfer” restriction to the license.

“I’ll ask [Mukarker] to prospectively put a limitation on the transfer of [a new] license,” said Selectmen Chair Mark Paolillo at the board’s final working session of 2016 in December.

Mukarker is seeking an On-Premises retail liquor license – commonly referred to as a “pouring license” – which the Selectmen can grant to restaurants, hotels, clubs, taverns, or war veterans clubs. The license fee and its annual renewal is $4,000. 

Paolillo said due to the use and then “sale” of the all retail license issued by the board to Mukarker in May 2014; he has “concerns” a new permit would become principally a financial asset to the businessman rather than a license to serve beer and wine. 

“I’m only asking that the license stays at least with the property,” said Paolillo.

Mukarker did not respond to a pair of requests for comments this past week.

What makes Mukarker’s current application noteworthy is the Belmont entrepreneur’s history with board-issued alcohol permits. A year after being awarded a retail liquor license at a public meeting in May 2015, Mukarker sought and received permission from the Board of Selectmen to use the license as collateral for a $300,000 loan to keep his new business solvent.

Around the same time, Mukarker requested the town to add a pour license to the existing retail permit but was informed existing state law prevented the town from issuing more than one license to a single entity. That law was changed this summer by the Legislature.

During the spring and summer of 2016, Mukarker began “shopping around” the retail license, according to Belmont retailers, seeking to transfer the permit which he described 

Mukarker was able to attempt the transfer his license when it was discovered that the enabling legislation granting the town additional licenses failed to have language written in a 2006 bill establishing alcohol sales in Belmont placing limitations on the movement and “sale” of licenses.

After two public meetings, the Board of Selectmen voted on Oct. 6, 2-1, to approve the transfer. Selectmen Jim Williams and Sami Baghdady voted for the Star Market acceptance stating there was no legal impediment to the move. Paolillo said at the time he believed the license should have been returned to the town. At that time both Star Market and Mukarker could apply for permits, starting the public application process which would required hearings and public meetings.

In December, the state’s Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission OK’d the transfer. Later that month, Star Market opened its new alcohol department in the Waverley Square store.

Mukarker’s transfer raised hackles from residents and town businesses who noted the licenses were created by Town Meeting to be issued to small locally-owned retailers. 

The mostly negative reaction by residents to the transfer is one of the impetus for a possible Special Town Meeting in February to address the question of transferability of town-issued liquor licenses.

But before a Town Meeting convenes. Paolillo said the board could only ask Mukarker to voluntarily impose a ban on any future transfer of the license. 

“We as a board can only deny a license for established reasons including traffic, noise, and proximity to schools and houses of worship,” he said.

“Right now, we can’t impose restrictions to collateralize or transfer a license,” said Paolillo. 

After Tax Dispute Resolved, Town’s Substation Sold to Eversource for $45M

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The 60-megawatt Blair Pond substation off Brighton Street.

After being delayed for several days to resolve a last-minute tax dispute, the most expensive transaction in the Town of Belmont’s history was approved Dec. 15 when the Light Board OK’d the sale of the newly-constructed Belmont Light’s 60-megawatt Blair Pond substation off Brighton Street and three new 115kV transmission lines to utility giant Eversource for $45 million.

The push back of the agreement’s closing date was due to an objection initiated by Selectman Sami Baghdady – the Board of Selectmen makes up the Light Board – who questioned Eversource’s assumption it was exempt from paying local taxes on contractual services which would reduce its tax burden to the town by nearly 90 percent.

In the end, the town’s contention made by Town Assessors’ Chair Robert Reardon that Eversource would be required to pay the full tax won the day as the utility will send an estimated $350,000 in annual taxes to the town.

The $45 million for the new cables and the 10,000 square-foot electrical substation off Brighton Street on Flanders Road on the Cambridge line will be used to pay off the $26 million in short-term loans used to construct the project.

The town’s new system that is connected to New England Electric Grid at Alewife will provide “an effective energy distribution solution for Belmont residents and businesses for the next forty years,” stated a press release from Belmont Light

In February 2012, Belmont Town Meeting voted unanimously to authorize $53.7 million in new bonding capacity to finance the new system which doubled electrical capacity increasing reliability for Belmont customers.

In its Joint Development Agreement, Eversource reimburses Belmont $45 million for the cost of constructing the transmission line and for the utility to take permanent ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the transmission line moving forward.

With the transfer of ownership, Belmont’s construction costs for the Blair Pond Substation and Transmission Line project, anticipated to be $53.7 million, closed out at $26.1 million, a $27.6 million savings for Belmont ratepayers.

A corresponding rate increase associated with the cost of this project that was initially anticipated to be approximately 14 percent for Belmont Light customers is instead 6 percent, an increase that has already been factored into rates, according to Belmont Light calculations.

“At the end of the day, in working with Eversource, we [can] deliver a critical project for Belmont electric users that addresses our serious capacity concerns, skyrocketing maintenance costs and power quality issues, in the most modernized and efficient manner,” said Belmont Light General Manager Jim Palmer in the press release.

“Just as important, due to our agreement with Eversource, we are able to do so substantially under the original cost estimates approved by Town Meeting and save the Belmont ratepayers $27.6 million while providing the best possible solution for our future needs.”

With Pot Legal, Selectmen Consider Curbs on Retail Sale of Marijuana

By Leave a Comment

Photo: What could be coming to Belmont in 13 months.

A head shop on every street corner in Belmont?

While not the most likely business scenario for the “Town of Homes,” unless the Belmont Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting gets together to place allowable restrictions on the retail sale of marijuana, stores much like those in Colorado, dubbed “recreational dispensaries,” could spring up in Belmont’s commercial districts with no prohibition on numbers.

And the clock is ticking.

“If Belmont wants to control [marajuna sales], it has a shorter timetable than it realizes,” said Board of Health Chair Dr. David Alper who meet the Selectmen with fellow board member Julie LeMay on Monday, Dec. 12.

The possession, use, and home-growing of marijuana became legal under state law for adults 21 and older on Thursday, Dec. 15 when the Governor’s Council certified the ballot question 4 which passed on Nov. 8. Adults can hold up to 10 oz. and grow six plants with a maximum of 12 per household.

While municipalities can adopt an outright moratorium on “smoke” shops – Ashland has gone that route – that sell smokable and eatable marijuana, Alper noted Belmont residents voted 53 percent to 47 percent for legalizing pot. Also, prohibiting pot sales would preclude Belmont from receiving up to 2 percent local tax on purchases.

Rather than a ban, Alper advised following the state’s goal of treating marijuana like alcohol, such as placing a cap on the number of establishments in town. The only current restriction on pot shops is they can not be within 500 feet of a school zone.

But Alper said the town must have any limitations in the town’s bylaws by January 2018 when the new law permits the first head shops to open for business.

“[The selectmen] must have an article before Town Meeting [in May 2017] so the town can vote in September,” he said.

“You are driving [future restrictions],” Alper told the selectmen, who advised creating a committee with representatives from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning, and Health boards to create guidelines for the Selectmen to follow.

“If we do nothing, there could be as many stores … [located] anywhere,” said Alper.

$45M Substation Sale In A Bind As Town Assess Eversource’s Tax Motives

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The new electrical substation, not yet Eversources

The largest financial transaction in the Town of Belmont’s history is on tenterhooks as a last-minute dispute over a powerful regional utility’s attempt to limit its exposure to municipal taxes has town officials demanding changes to the already signed sales agreement.

With only four days left to complete the deal, the Belmont Light Board (made up of the Board of Selectmen) and the chair of the town’s Board of Assessors are seeking changes to or the elimination of a single paragraph in the sale of the town’s new substation and two land easements which would nearly zero-out the firm’s exposure to paying non-property taxes by binding Belmont to the utilities’ interpretation of those costs.

“We are at an impasse,” said Light Board Chair Mark Paolillo at the Board’s Monday afternoon meeting at Town Hall, Dec. 12.

“We as the town fathers would be failing to do our job to approve this agreement as it is right now,” said board member Sami Baghdady.

What’s not in dispute is the $45 million Eversource will pay Belmont for the newly-constructed 10,000 square-foot electrical substations off Brighton Street on Flanders Road on the Cambridge line and new 115 kV transmission lines using easements along the MBTA Commuter Rail tracks and on town property. The new substation was approved by a unanimous vote of Special Town Meeting in Feb. 2012.

Formerly known as Northeast Utilities, the Hartford- and Boston-based Eversource is a regional electrical and gas utility with more than 3.6 million customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. It merged with NSTAR in 2012.

Belmont Town Treasurer Floyd Carman said the payment, which last week he called the largest financial transaction the town has committed to, will be used to pay off $28 million in short-term bonds which financed the construction.

Carman said the remaining $17 million would be set aside to pay the cost of decommissioning Belmont Light’s three former substations located at the Chenery Middle School, off Hittinger Street and at the old Light Department Headquarters adjacent the Police Station on Concord Avenue and other improvements.

Under a joint development agreement, Belmont’s electrical utility Belmont Light and Eversource agreed to close the deal and transfer the assets two weeks after final testings concluded which occurred on Dec. 2. The Light Board – which is the governing body of Belmont Light – and Eversource then worked to reach an agreement before Dec. 16.

It was during the reading of the purchase and sale agreement that Baghdady, a transactional attorney, spotted a line in the document concerning the assessment of non-property personal services, which is the value of the contractional work on the project.

“I could tell that [Eversource] appeared to be attempting to minimize their taxes to the town,” said Baghdady.

While the Light Board signed the sales agreement at an Emergency Meeting on Friday, Dec. 9, it did so with the caveat that more information on the fallout of Eversource’s motive to add the language to the deal. The board then asked the town’s Board of Assessors’ Chair Robert Reardon to lend his expertise to the matter.

Reardon, whose day job is the director of the Cambridge Assessing Department, concluded the current language would bind Belmont’s assessors to that went against its best interest and ran counter to state assessing law which allows municipalities to not just tax real property but the value of the personal services, in Belmont’s case when engineers installed the transformers, switchgear, and protective equipment.

In Reardon’s opinion under the existing agreement, Eversource could point to the sales document to prevent Belmont’s assessors from taxing the services rendered.

In his view, the annual assessed payment from the utility to the town would be reduced from approximately $350,000 to $3,500, saving the utility $346,500 annually to Belmont’s deficit.

“I trying to protect the town,” said Reardon as he declared his opposition to the deal.

Belmont Light’s counsel Walter Foskett said Eversource could be reluctant to make changes to a signed sales document, but Paolillo noted that Eversourse “showed their hand” on including and defending the particular paragraph to the agreement.

“Why care about the language if you are not going to use it … for a tax break,” he said.

In the view of Reardon and the Light Board, taking out the disputed language doesn’t prevent Eversource from appealing the judgment of Belmont’s assessors to the appellate court.

“This is important enough to meet again,” said Paolillo.

Sold in Belmont: Only Million Dollar Homes Need Apply This Week

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The only single family home to sell last week and, as always, at a premium.

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

screen-shot-2016-12-11-at-9-10-15-pm

• 58 Summitt Rd., Townhouse (2005). Sold: $1,140,000. Listed at $1,275,000. Living area: 2,880 sq.-ft. 9 rooms, 3 bedrooms, 3.5 baths. On the market: 92 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-11-at-9-26-30-pm

• 19 Fieldmont Rd., Tudor (1925). Sold: $1,195,000. Listed at $2,300,000. Living area: 3,952 sq.-ft. 10 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 4.5 baths. On the market: 173 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-11-at-9-30-02-pm

• 54 Selwyn Rd., Center entrance Colonial (1925). Sold: $1,250,000. Listed at $1,035,000. Living area: 2,763 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 68 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-11-at-9-37-30-pm

• 47 Homer Rd., Center entrance Colonial (1940). Sold: $1,650,000. Listed at $1,699,900. Living area: 3,080 sq.-ft. 8 rooms, 5 bedrooms, 3.5 baths. On the market: 68 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-11-at-9-47-37-pm

• 80-82 Lewis Rd., Two family (1924). Sold: $1,089,500. Listed at $995,000. Living area: 3,100 sq.-ft. 15 rooms, 7 bedrooms, 3 baths. On the market: 82 days.

Sold in Belmont: A Softening in Multifamily Prices, For at Least a Week

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The only single family home to sell last week and, as always, at a premium.

A weekly recap of residential properties sold in the past seven days in the “Town of Homes.”

screen-shot-2016-12-04-at-3-48-05-pm

• 136 White St., Condominum (1910). Sold: $360,000. Listed at $414,900. Living area: 1,244 sq.-ft. 5 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 66 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-04-at-4-00-46-pm

• 181 Claflin St., Colonial  (1950). Sold: $1,150,000. Listed at $1,050,000. Living area: 2,493 sq.-ft. 9 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths. On the market: 53 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-04-at-4-15-52-pm

• 225 White St., Two-family (1908). Sold: $728,000. Listed at $799,000. Living area: 3,203 sq.-ft. 10 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 80 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-04-at-4-17-22-pm

• 210-214 Waverley, Two-family (1880). Sold: $720,000. Listed at $739,900. Living area: 2,925 sq.-ft. 12 rooms, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths. On the market: 75 days.

screen-shot-2016-12-04-at-4-22-28-pm

• 140 Trapelo Rd., First-floor condominum (1932). Sold: $390,000. Listed at $400,000. Living area: 830 sq.-ft. 4 rooms, 2 bedrooms, 1 baths. On the market: 78 days.

Fill Some Holiday ‘Big Wishes’ at Belmont Savings’ Giving Tree Drive

By Leave a Comment

Photo: A giving tree at Belmont Savings.

To help brighten the season for local children, Belmont Savings Bank is supporting the “Big Wishes Gift Drive” in its Belmont, Watertown and Cambridge branches to benefit the Home for Little Wanderers.

From now until Dec. 15, those interested in participating can stop by Belmont Savings Bank branches in Belmont, Watertown or Cambridge and select an ornament from the giving trees on display. Each ornament indicates the gender and age of a child, as well as the type of gift needed.

All unwrapped gifts dropped off at Belmont Savings will be delivered to the Home for Little Wanderers, which serves children and youth from birth to 21, making a positive impact on more than 7,000 lives each year through a wide network of programs.

Located in Waltham, Dorchester, Roslindale, Plymouth, Walpole, Roxbury, Norwood, Brighton, Somerville and Bridgewater, The Home has an “open door structure that allows children, families, and young adults access services at any point in continuum of care, based on their needs.” Services include: adoption, foster care, clinical and family support, residential care, special education, youth aging out, case management, and program evaluation.

For additional information, please visit Belmont Savings Bank’s website.