Solar Flare Up: Town Meeting Rejects Petition as Members Voice Concerns

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Town Meeting.

Tempers flared as Town Meeting members rejected an article hoping to spark a conversation about the future of solar power that one member called “too squishy” on the first night of the annual Belmont Town Meeting held Monday, May 4, at Belmont High School.

Tensions rose to a point unseen in recent years when the presenter of the solar power article accused some members of being too scared to debate the subject.

“What are you afraid of? A conversation? An argument? Having different opinions? It’s sort of like ‘let’s not talk about this’. ‘Let’s keep it under the table’,” queried Roger Wrubel, Precinct 5, as fellow members shouted out “point of order!” to Town Moderator Mike Widmer – who previously sternly rebuked a few members for straying from the narrow nature of article – who moments later admonished Wrubel for making accusations against a member of the Board of Selectmen.

Former Selectman Ralph Jones, who filed an successful amendment to the article to delay indefinitely the citizens petition, said bad blood has been boiling over in the past year during the crafting and implantation of a new set of rules for solar customers approved by the Light Board (which is comprised of the Board of Selectmen) in December, only to be set aside two weeks ago.

“[B]oth sides on this issue really want to fight tonight. A fight to the death … A fight to the pain,” Jones said, referring to a quote from “The Princess Bride.”

Jones than quoted a citizen who said “… Fighting over this issue is not helping our efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It’s just getting in our way.”

In the end, while the majority of members did not appear hostile towards solar energy, the legislative body once again was reluctant to support an article which was, at best, confusing and apparently counter to the true nature of the measure.

Wubel said just that, noting that the article’s aim, to bring a non-binding resolution to the voters that would ask the town’s state legislators to vote for a legislative measure that doesn’t exist.

“[The article] is to start a conversation on solar energy at Town Meeting,” said Wrubel.

Town Meeting also sent a message that it wished to follow the advice of the newly-constituted Light Board – with the inclusion of newly-elected Selectman Jim Williams and chaired by Sami Baghdady – to allow it to write a Belmont-specific plan to assist in promoting greater solar usage.

“This was a wake-up call for Belmont,” said Baghdady.

And while proponents of the measure – which would have placed a non-binding referendum on the town’s ballot – left the Belmont High School auditorium in a huff after its defeat, it was pointed out that the status quo in Belmont today gives the pro-solar power what they have long been seeking.

“Until a new policy is created, Belmont has full net metering. Isn’t that what they want?” said Baghdady after the meeting. 

Wrubel’s presentation spoke of the success of solar statewide but how past and future policies were affecting progress in Belmont.

The goals of this non-binding resolution is to ensure that Belmont Light [the town’s electrical utility] “treat their solar customers the same as solar customers as they are throughout the state,” said Wrubel, pointing out that 30 of 40 municipal utilities uses a concept called net metering that credits solar owners for the electricity they add to the grid.

Unlike other utilities in the state, Wrubel said what Belmont Light is doing is not providing retail pricing but a small fee to solar generators. That is one of the reasons Belmont has only 20 residents with solar arrays.

“The effects of the policy that the Light Board has been discussing and eventually pass really has a chilling effect on people willing to take on solar in Belmont,” said Wrubel.

Jones introduces Patty DiOrio, of the Belmont Municipal Light Advisory Board – which wrote the draft plan that is no longer being used – who said the article “effectively says that we shouldn’t decide for ourselves whether or not we have certain policies surrounding solar or any other type of green energy.”

DiOrio said many utilities are currently questioning net metering “so we are in good company” and much of that has to do with all customers paying a “subsidy” to allow solar users to use the grid but not pay for the systems upkeep that has a lot of fixed costs.

DiOrio noted that a state task force on solar power released a report last week saying “people using the grid should pay their fair share; it was a consensus agreement.”

“So you can vote no on this article and know that you are not anti-solar,” said DiOrio. “Why do we want to give up our local control? Why would we want to endorse a policy that is neither market-based nor cost based?”

Jones, who spent the previous weekend in a “shuttle diplomacy” to find a compromise between the two sides which proved unsuccessful, presented his amendment to the article tabling the measure indefinitely.

“I proposed postponing this for a while to let tempers cool down,” said Jones, pointing out the Light Board decided on April 22 to indefinitely propose a draft policy approved back in December that would have set a new policy on net metering long opposed by solar supporters.

“Article 9 in a non-binding sort of way instructs our legislators to vote in favor of legislation that does not exist and also asks you as Town Meeting members to vote for legislation that you can not read. That’s fairly rare,” said Jones.

Since any state legislation on solar power – none is being proposed currently – won’t be filed until the next legislative year, “it would be prudent to me to allow our Light Board to act. They have been elected to govern … local officials adopting local policy to meet local needs,” said Jones.

After making his “fight to the death” comment, Jones asked residents “to put down our verbal weapons, stop this fight and postpone Article 9” which the Board of Selectmen asked for favorable action.

During question time, Fred Paulsen, Precinct 1, said he would have voted “yes” on an up-or-down amendment that said are we in favor of net metering. “But [this amendment] is not that simple, the language of this resolution is complex and brings in the state level so we ought to work on this locally.”

Anne Mahon, Precinct 4, said that solar companies will not come to Belmont since the current conditions are preserved to be so anti-solar. “11 cents a household a year to support the people with solar. Is that really going to kill you? If it is, call me. I’ll pay the bill.”

Then, suddenly, things got heated. Paul Roberts, Precinct 8, said he wasn’t going to talk to Jones’ amendment but rather “we need a municipal electric company that really represents the values and priorities of this town” while this issue was “foisted upon this town by some ideological leadership on the Municipal Light Advisory Board.”

That’s when Widmer told Roberts he had moved beyond the scope of Jones’ amendment. When Roberts objected, Widmer would not have any more discussion on the matter.

Claus Becker, Precinct 5, questioned the claims by DiOrio that subsidies are provided to solar users. When Widmer asked that he returned to the narrow question before Town Meeting, Becker asked to “please allow the conversation that we’ve been elected to have to proceed.”

Widmer said while there are worthy questions to ask about global warming and solar power, “we are considering a motion for indefinite postponement, and it is incumbent for us to stick to our business.”

Baghdady, in answering a question on when the Light Board would begin debating new rules, said that Belmont Light is currently operating “right now pure net metering” and was going to remain that way until a new policy is adopted.

Despite given an opportunity earlier to speak against the postponement of his article, Wrubel asked to address the meeting.

“The reason that we brought this because at meetings that we … ” Wrubel attempted to say before calls from the members rang out of “point of order” as they felt Wrubel had veered off the subject.

Widmer allowed Wrubel to continue until he made an accusation that one of the Board of Selectmen told solar supporters “that you don’t matter” when drawing up regulations.

Widmer sternly told Wrubel his statements were “inappropriate” and “[T]his kind of accusation, I’m not going to put up with it. So, please, sit down.”

Julie Crocket, Precinct 5, and Phil Thayer, Precinct 6, supported continuing debate to help determine the sentiment of Town Meeting towards solar power.

But Bob McLaughlin, Precinct 2, said he supported Jones’ amendment “because I don’t know what we’re voting on. This is too squishy for me.”

“This has to come into a lot more focus on the vote of this board means anything,” said McLaughlin.

Nearly 70 percent of Town Meeting voted to determinate debate and Jones’ amendment was approved overwhelmingly. 

For Baghdady, it is now up to the Light Board “to come up with a plan that truly meets all the demands from both the solar supporters and Belmont Light. We have this opportunity which I believe we can accomplish.”

Belmont Town Meeting: Night 1, May 4

By 2 Comments

Photo: Belmont Town Meeting.

Welcome to the first night of the 156 annual Belmont Town Meeting, Monday, May 4, 2014, the town’s legislative body in action.

So, what’s in store tonight? Likely we’ll get through the first nine articles in the warrant which includes a non-binding resolution on a solar power referendum (the debate on this could go one and on), a McMansion zoning article, storm water review, and other stuff.

And the meeting is on Belmont time, five minutes late.

7:08 p.m.: We’ve had the invocation, the flags were brought into the auditorium by the Boy and Cub scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance and the singing of the National Anthem by the Belmont High A Cappella. Very nice.

7:15 p.m.: I wonder when the Town Meeting will be comfortable with electronic voting that we don’t need a demonstration. I’m guessing a few more decades.

7:20 p.m.: New and recently re-elected members are given the oath of office by Town Clerk Ellen Cushman.

7:25 p.m.: Town Moderator Mike Widmer telling the members about the new rules; five minutes per speaker, one question and a follow up question, and direct questions through the moderator.

7:28 p.m.: Two proclamations to a pair residents “beloved by Belmont,” said Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady; Anne Allen and Bob Dally.

7:35 p.m.: So we’re off – time to hear the order of the motions. The first nine articles will be debated in May, “hopefully within the first two nights,” said Baghdady.

“I am very upbeat on Belmont,” said Baghdady.

Anne Paulsen is giving an update on the new Underwood Pool. Everything is swimmingly. “Work is going on in a feverous pace” so the pool can be completed by August for a “short season.” So get passes at a discounted rate at the Recreation Department.

7:42 p.m.: Housecleaning articles up first.

7:44 p.m.: Up is Article 3, amending the Storm Water Management and Erosion bylaw to allow more updated rainfall data to apply to the bylaw. But the Conservation Commission uses the old data, which would be a mess as half the town would be using different data. The amendment would allow the ConCom to use the new data, while asking the Board of Selectmen to use the new data set. With a few questions, the article is adopted, with a single no vote. 

7:57 p.m.: Article 6, the citizens petition to control the building of McMansions in the Shaw Estates neighborhood. You can read what the beef of the residents here. Basically, the residents are seeking to limit the height of residential properties to 32 feet to the mid-point. This will sunset on June 30, 2016 unless extended at the next Town Meeting. The people, now called the Belmont Citizens for Responsible Zoning, live in single-family residence, hopes this moratorium will begin a discussion on these “oversized” homes that tower over neighboring homes, crowd out sunlight, and undermines the character of the “Town of Homes.” The current zoning bylaw requires existing homes to obtain a special permit but not for new construction.

Stephen Pinkerton, Pct. 7, said the town faces acceleration oversize construction, especially his neighborhood. Five new McMansions have gone up in the past few years. The before and after pictures of what was there and what is replaced has Town Meeting buzzing, especially the new house on Betts Road currently under construction. “Our neighborhood has been transformed,” said Peg Callahan, who is presenting the petition.

Pinkerton shows that new construction under current bylaw will allow the total height to be 40 feet tall. The 32 feet mid-point “is a compromise” so not to be overwhelming. Callahan said if approved, the new group will meet with Planning Board to construct town-wide limits. A good cheer at the end.

Jim Stanton, Pct. 3, said since the town approved a series of actions in the General Residence district (precinct 3 and 4), one argument against the moratorium is economic harm to seller and developers, but it turns out only the developers reap the great profit when a McMansion is built rather than a more sensible sized house.

Price Armstrong, Pct. 7, asked if the town as a town-wide master plan to come to these goals. He said Cambridge, Lexington and others have such a comprehensive plan. Baghdady said there was one five years ago (but that was killed – tabled – at the 2010 Town Meeting). 

Bob Kennedy, Pct 3, said he lives in Kendell Garden, a neighborhood of small homes, and he was effected when a McMansion was built there. Why would it not be better that the entire town be placed under the neighborhood, because then developers will go to other neighborhoods to beat a town wide change in the bylaw. Selectman Mark Paolillo said you can’t change the amendment but he’s worried about this. Mike Battista, chair of the Planning Board, said even if a town-wide bylaw is not approved, this moratorium can be extended. 

Marty Cohen, Pct. 3, said that this is a “wake-up call.” “Belmont needs a zoning bylaw that’s good for Belmont.”

8:33 p.m.: a voice vote on the article: clearly adopted to the moderator, but why not an electronic vote? And the vote is: 238 to 24.

Wow, only a half an hour to go thorough that amendment.

8:38 p.m.: Next up is Article 7 which is related to the rezoning of General Residences district which passed articles to give special tools to the Planning Board – special permits being one – to make for better housing that is consistent with the neighborhood. Planning Board member Liz Allison said the Board would like another tool. Under the current bylaw, the developer can build a big two-family with a special permit. So this amendment would allow the board to approve a developer with a large lot, 8,000 sq-ft and 90 feet of frontage, to build a pair of single families. 

8:46 p.m.: And the fire alarm goes off! And off we go to the parking lot!

9 p.m.: And we are back! That was delightful. I understand members who left through the music room were serenaded by a chorus. 

Now back to the article; the proponents are looking to “bring back the charm” of the single family (with limits to allow green space between the two buildings) back to the GR zone, said Joseph DeStefano of the Planning Board. 

Questions? Several interesting questions on position of the front door, hypothetical events, and other issues. The question is called and debate is ended. The vote on the article (requires 2/3 vote since it’s a zoning bylaw) is 235 to 10 and the article is adopted.

9:35 p.m.: Moderator Mike Widmer asks if the meeting will want to begin Article 9, the solar power non-binding resolution, debate it for an hour and suspend until Wednesday. Yes, says the meeting.

This is Article 9, the citizens petition on solar power. The Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 to oppose the article. (Jim Williams the lone yes vote). Roger Wrubel, Pct 5, speaks for the petition. Wrubel said this article will bring solar power to a wider audience. This isn’t really about a ballot question, but rather a request for the public utility, Belmont Light, not discriminate against solar owners with special fees. Wrubel explains net metering, required by most utilities which, it turns out, intensifies solar usage. Wrubel said he wants Belmont Light to provide the same retail net metering as 30 of 40 communities. How many Belmont household have solar arrays? 20. Not much. Wrubel said Belmont Light’s policy has punished residents who want to use solar. 

Ralph Jones, Pct 3, introduces Patty DiOrio, of the Belmont Municipal Light Advisory Board – which wrote the draft plan that is no longer being used, who said that the solar advocates will get a subsidy from other users. There is no discrimination to solar users, said DiOrio. This is about keeping local control on how the utility determines how to pay for solar power. 

Jones said its best to wait on the issue so Belmont can create its own standards. He said there are people at Town Meeting who are itching to do battle over the issue. “They want a fight to the death … a fight to the pain.” He proposes this amendment be postpone until a later date to allow emotions to  calm down. 

Fred Paulsen, Pct 1, said its critical Belmont has a strong independent utility. He said with the state task force on solar net metering coming out with a report, the Light Board (it’s made up of the Board of Selectmen) will come up with it’s own standards.

Suddenly the issue is getting people hot under the collar. Paul Roberts, Pct 8, is scolded rather loudly by the moderator for moving beyond the narrow scope of the question. 

Dan Nolan, Pct 2, wonders how long is “indefinite” as in “indefinitely postponed.” Baghdady said the draft buy back plan is off the boards and the Light Board will come up with a plan for Belmont “sooner than later.”

When asked by a speaker if DiOrio has a conflict of interest as she is employed by National Grid, a large utility that supplies Belmont Light with energy, she and Jones said no, this was irrelevant to this measure. For some reason, this is the final straw for Wrubel who goes to the speakers podium and accusing people of “being afraid” to discuss the article and the subject. Calls from the members ring out that Wrubel is “out of order.” Moderator Widmer has heard enough and sends Wrubel back to the bench.

Julie Crocket, Pct. 5, and Phil Thayer, Pct 6, support the measure and requests that the debate continue.

Bob McLaughlin, Pct. 2, questions the entire article, saying it’s far too “squishy” to vote on because it advises the town’s state legislators to vote for legislation that doesn’t exist. 

Then, of all people, Don Mercier, Pct. 8, asked that the questioned be moved, needed a 2/3 majority, it got it. Town Meeting is not in a mood to spend the rest of the night and Wednesday in a debating tournament. Article 9 is voted down by a healthy margin.

10:20 p.m.: Town Meeting will reconvene on Wednesday, May 6.

As Town Delays Policy, Town Meeting Considers Solar Power Resolution

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Solar panels.

Just two weeks after the Belmont Light Board – made up of the Belmont Board of Selectmen – decided to delayed the start of a payment plan for residents who use solar power, Town Meeting will debate placing a non-binding resolution on the town ballot to ask if the town should support as policy a higher subsidy to homeowners who choose the solar route.

While Sami Baghdady, the chair of the Light Board and the Selectmen, said the delay was so legal language could be clarified in the documents homeowners are required to sign, he did not dismiss the possibility the Light Board – which oversees Belmont Light, the municipal electric utility – could lead to a change in the Residential Rate APV, the new set of rates for customers who use solar panels to generate electricity which was approved in December. 

“At this point, it’s a delay. May it result in a re-evalutation of the policy? I think it might,” said Baghdady after a Selectmen’s meeting on Monday, April 27. 

The Light Board OK’d the postponement after several of the 18 residents who are entitled to participate in Belmont Light’s new program voiced concerns on understanding the legal language in the agreement including a very strong indemnity provision that needed to be signed and returned by April 24. 

“So when [the board] met (on April 22), we raised several questions regarding the packet that went out to residents that were still unresolved. So we agreed to delay the implementation. Concurrent with that, so that necessitated a delay in the filing [by Belmont Light] to the Massachusetts Department of Utilities,” said Baghdady. 

With the new residential rate delayed, Town Meeting will likely take up on the first night of the annual meeting, Monday, May 4, a citizen’s petition from a group of solar power advocates seeking members approval to place a non-binding referendum to gauge the community’s support for either the newly-created buy back pricing program or one which provides a greater payback to households using solar energy. 

Under the newly-delayed plan – which took nearly two years and sometimes contentious debates between advocates and the Municipal Light Advisory Board which drew up the blueprint – residents who install solar power would pay the standard monthly fee every household pays to be hooked up to the Belmont Light system, and a new monthly charge of about $14 for installed capacity.

The new plan also reduces the money homeowners receives as a credit for energy Belmont Light “buys back” when the solar system is generating excess energy as the utility pays for electricity over the course of the entire month, without crediting the homeowner if the electricity is generated during peak-times and how much greenhouse gas emissions they are savings.  

Solar advocates contend they should receive additional credits, (or as the utility calls subsidies) for a myriad of energy and pollution savings.

While the debate in Belmont continues, a state task force on net metering and solar power issued its own report on April 30 concluding that it did did “not support raising the net metering caps in the short term absent a long term sustainable solution.”

“Rather, we believe it is extremely important that any adjustments to the caps be accompanied by meaningful changes to the mix of incentives and proper consideration of the role of the ratepayers,” it read.

A Week of Road Closures, Parking Restrictions Set During Golf Tourney

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The map of street closures set for June during a golf event in Belmont.

A popular travel link between Route 2 and Belmont will be closed for nearly a week in early June and residents living close to Belmont Country Club will have daytime parking restrictions in their neighborhoods while a major golf tournament takes place, according to Belmont Police.

During the Professional Golf Association (PGA) Tour’s Constellation Senior Players Championship, taking place at Belmont Country Club next month, initial plans call for Winter Street from Route 2 to Marsh Street to be closed during the day to through traffic from Tuesday, June 9, through Sunday, June 14, 2015, according to Belmont’s Assistant Chief James MacIsaac.

Residents should also expect daytime parking restrictions in the neighborhoods abutting the club.

These are initial plans that still need to be finalized, said MacIsaac. 

The news comes a few weeks since the PGA initiated, then rejected using Rock Meadow Conservation Land for up to 1,000 parking spaces. Currently, the PGA acquired parking, outside of Belmont, for employees and spectators who will be transported by shuttle bus from parking areas to the club. 

Belmont Police will host a public meeting at 7 p.m. on May 14, in the Wadsworth Room of the Belmont Hill School Athletic Center. This meeting will provide residents with information pertaining to traffic and parking plans. The meeting will also provide residents with the opportunity to ask questions to law enforcement.

Those interested in obtaining future announcements on the PGA’s event at Belmont Country Club should follow the police and town’s social media accounts and websites.

New Belmont Center Parking Pricing Plan Begins May 1

By 1 Comment

Photo: The new commuter parking spaces along Royal Road.

Postponed three months due to the record snow fall, a new parking pricing scheme for Belmont Center’s parking lot and along a street popular with commuters begins Friday, May 1. 

The plan includes the new fee structure for residents and shoppers using the municipal parking lot on Claflin Street and an attempt to monetize the vast number of commuters who have parked on Belmont streets for nothing, or close to it, for decades.

At Belmont Center’s main parking lot, the daily rate is being upped from $3 to $5. Shoppers will now pay a buck an hour to park there. 

In addition to the hourly and daily fees jumps in Belmont Center, the town created 10 weekday parking spots along Royal Road adjacent to the MBTA’s Belmont commuter rail station in addition to spaces in the Claflin St. lot reserved for commuter pass holders.

Those monthly passes are going for $90 a pop, an increase of $30.

Many Belmont businesses owners were critical of the blueprint when it was approved in December, noting the hardship for many part-time employees. The Belmont Center Business Association suggested cutting the increases to employees and shoppers while pushing more of the costs onto commuters.

Belmont officials noted the new rates were approved by the town’s parking advisory group, and were vital to allow the parking system to pay its own way. 

Belmont Town Treasurer Floyd Carman, said rates have been kept steady since January 2009 while the demand for parking spots is outstripping supply.

“Belmont parking is at a premium. We are not like other towns that either has the space for big lots or a lot of industry that can subsidize parking,” said Carman. “Belmont does not have that luxury; We have a limited number of parking spaces. That’s the facts.”

White Knight to the Rescue: Cushing Village Partnering with Cambridge Firm

By 1 Comment

Photo: Cushing Village on the Chinese-language website, Jei Wi. 

After more than 21 months since the town approved its construction, the developer of the multi-use Cushing Village project has apparently found his “White Knight” to help rescue the 167,000 square foot project that has been floundering since 2013. 

In a press release dated April 27, Cushing Village’s developer, Smith Legacy Partners said Cambridge-based Urban Spaces would become its “development partner” in constructing the three-building complex comprising 115 apartments, about 36,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and a garage complex with 230 parking spaces. 

Urban Spaces’ “development expertise will help to ensure that the vision we have for the Cushing Village project becomes a reality,” said Chris Starr, the managing partner of Smith Legacy Partners located in Acton.

Movement on the long-stalled project at the corner of Trapelo Road and Common Street was met with approval from town officials.

“We welcome any news suggesting that the Cushing Village project is progressing,” said Sami Baghdady, chair of the Belmont Board of Selectmen. Baghdady was chair of the Planning Board, which spent nearly 18 months reviewing Starr’s plans for the project before approving the development plans in July 2013. 

Reports have yet to reveal the exact relationship between Starr and Urban Spaces, in terms of an equity stake, or which party has the controlling interest currently or in the future. In Urban Spaces’ past developments, the still young firm – it was founded in 2005 and completed its first major development in 2010 – has a history of continuing to hold onto properties once they are completed. 

“Unlike most developers, who are there to get projects built and move on, we manage all of our own properties,” said Urban Spaces’ Vice President of Operations Jeff Hirsch.

“We’re in it for the long haul,” Hirsch said in an article in the trade journal Construction Now.

The press release announcing the partnership said Urban Spaces “acquires, develops, and manages high-end residential properties in close proximity to urban centers.” 

Town officials are not aware of the partnership arrangement between Starr and Urban Spaces. 

“I am not aware of the nature of Urban Spaces’ participation in the project, but I am sure we will learn more before the developer purchases the Cushing Square parking lot property from the town,” said Baghdady. 

The initial step forward to begin construction of the complex will be the sale of the municipal parking lot adjacent to Trapelo and Williston roads by the town to the partnership for $850,000. That sale will be completed once the new team meets a series of provisions in the development agreement, once of which is identifying the development’s financing. 

The town can expect to receive about $1.5 million in the parking lot sale and fees and permit costs. 

But despite the announcement, nothing has taken place between the partners and the town with no firm date for the beginning of construction, according to Glenn Clancy, the town’s director of Community Development. 

The partnership announcement appears to bring an end to a tumultuous 21 months for Starr – who personally sued each of the Board of Selectmen in 2010 in a dispute over the municipal parking lot – as proclamations to the town of quick start on the project quickly turned into a series of delays and broken promises. 

Stalled by financing

In January 2014, Starr made public statements that construction would begin in the late winter or the early summer with the first stores opening by the spring of 2015. Yet the next time the development team was before town officials was in March 2014 when Starr’s representatives  negotiated with the Board of Selectmen a month-to-month extension to purchase the Trapelo Road  municipal parking lot by paying a $20,000 monthly non-refundable fee.

So far, Smith Legacy has sent nearly a quarter of a million dollars into town coffers. This month, the fee is scheduled to increase to $30,000. 

Discussion within the local business circles indicated that Starr – whose previous development experience has been building a small retail development in his hometown – was finding it difficult finding the necessary development financing to come before the town to purchase the parking lot. 

In addition, Starr had parted ways with his previous development partner, Porter Square’s Oaktree Development before finalizing the building rights with the Planning Board, which many business insiders said only made it more difficult finding a financial backer.

By August 2014, Starr hired Boston Realty Advisors, a commercial deal maker, offering up Cushing Village as a “pre-sale or joint venture development opportunity.”

By the beginning of 2015, the development showed up on the leading real estate website in China, JuWai.com, where it was seeking investors willing to pay up to $8 million to become a financial partner.

While the development stalled, the project lost an opportunity to lease the anchor retail space to a grocery store Starr has longed sought, when Foodie’s Urban Market decided to rent about 30,000 square-feet in the former Macy’s site in Belmont Center. 

It appeared activity was about to occur at the development with the news that the popular laundromat E-Z Duz It at the corner of Horne Road and Common Street was closing on April 30. 

What Urban Spaces brings to the partnership is just about everything needed to start, complete and run the development. The firm, founded by Paul Ognibene (who incidentally is the chair of the Cohasset School Committee), has experience developing Cushing Village-like projects. A recently completed building is a commercial development at 159 First Street in Cambridge’s Kendall Square, totaling 126,000 square feet housing 115 apartments with an underground parking garage and ground floor retail.

Screen Shot 2015-04-29 at 8.51.54 AM

159 First Street, Cambridge, built by Urban Spaces.

Another, currently being planned on the Brighton and Brookline line on Washington Street, would include 130 units on five floors, first-floor retail space with 80 underground parking spaces. In that project, Urban Space acquired a 99-year lease on the property. 

Urban Space is also very active in the property management field and has financed projects it builds such as 7 Cameron Ave. in North Cambridge, and 30 Haven St. in Reading, built in 2012.

Coincidently, Urban Spaces partnered with Oaktree Development in the Reading development. 

“We’re in a big growth stage,” Urban Spaces’ Hirsch said in the Construction Now article.

“We’ve tripled in size in the last year and a half, and our property management business has quadrupled. We have been able to bring in some amazingly talented people with the same core values towards value, quality, and plain old hard work,” he said.

Belmont Center Reconstruction Begins This Week

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The sign of the times.

The large electric sign along Concord Avenue near Belmont High School proclaims: “Belmont Center Const,” “Seek Alt. Routes” and “Expect Delays.” 

The warning is the first tangible sign of the beginning of the $2.8 million Belmont Center Reconstruction Project starting this week with prep work for the actual construction to be led by Watertown’s Charles Construction.

This week, April 27, will see the installation of construction signage at various location around the center as well as putting down Digsafe markings, said Glenn Clancy, the director of the Office of Community Service. In addition, reflective and protective devices will also be installed.

On the week of May 4, the center will be surveyed and plans laid out. Large construction work will begin by the start of June. 

It’s expected the reconstruction – which includes the roadway, sidewalks, curbing, signage and lighting – will be completed by November. 

Notices of the construction schedule have been hand delivered to businesses and residents this past Friday. 

Belmont Commemorates Centennial of Armenian Genocide

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The proclamation commemorating the Armenian genocide, April 21, (from left) Jim Williams, Jirair Hovsepian, Mon. Atamian, Sami Baghdady and Mark Paolillo. 

It’s remembered as “Medz Yeghern,” the “Great Crime”, the genocide of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire in present day Turkey in the midst of World War I. 

Historians said the mass extermination of Armenians began on April 24, 1915, the day Ottoman authorities arrested and later executing 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople.

To recognize the events of a century past, the Belmont Board of Selectmen issued a proclamation, the seventh in as many years, on April 21, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the deaths of more than a million Armenians. 

“It is an event that should never be forgotten,” said Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady.

Before the proclamation was signed, a Belmont resident spoke out on why the town’s declaration was important.

“We will altogether stand up and raise our voices in a well-tuned unison,” Jirair Hovsepian, a Chandler Street resident, told the selectmen.

IMG_5061

“We will continue to proclaim loud and clear that the organized annihilation of 1.5 million innocent people, our ancestors, is not the fruit of one nation’s imagination or a leisurely invented brutal fairy tale,” said Hovsepian, a member of Boston Armenian Genocide Commemoration Committee

Home to generations of residents of Armenian heritage, Belmont has been a hub of expatriate activity and life, where survivors of the genocide – including Pastor Vartan Hartunian of the First Armenian Church in Belmont – would keep the experience alive. 

Monsignor Andon Atamian, the pastor of the Holy Cross Armenian Catholic Church in Belmont, said a prayer for the “martyred saints and our homeland.”

Hovsepian said the survival of the Armenian people “is a proclamation in itself,” ending by recalling the words of William Saroyan:

“Go ahead, destroy Armenia. See if you can do it. Send them into the desert without bread or water. Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh, sing and pray again. For when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a new Armenia.” 

Noise Alert: Belmont Will Have a Voice on New MassPort Committee

By 1 Comment

Photo: Air traffic at Logan Airport. 

Belmont, along with Watertown and Arlington, will now have a seat on a new regional committee which will advise the operator of the airports in Boston, Bedford and Worcester on matters such as noise and air quality control. 

But it took a bit of legislative back tracking for the communities to be put on the committee.

With the support of several colleagues in both branches of the legislature, State Sen. Will Brownsberger passed an amendment to the supplemental budget adding representatives from the three town onto the MassPort Community Advisory Committee (MassPort CAC).

The Massport CAC is planning its first meeting later in the spring.

Residents have expressed their frustration on the growing amount of air traffic noise over the community since the Federal Aviation Authority re-routed air traffic patterns in which aircraft taking off from Boston’s Logan Airport proceeded over Belmont.

The Massachusett legislature voted to establish the Massport CAC in 2013 which will supersede the Logan Community Advisory Committee, which was created in 2002 as part of the Boston Logan Airport Noise Study and is about to end.

But when the MassPort CAC was created two years ago, Belmont, Arlington and Watertown were not included in the original list of represented communities. 

That misstep was rectified last week through the work of Brownsberger and State Reps Dave Rogers, Jonathan Hecht and Sean Garballey.

The MassPort CAC will be able to make recommendations to the governor and legislature, hold hearings, make recommendations to the MassPort Board of Directors and appoint a member to the MassPort Board.  

Although the Federal Aviation Authority has control over air traffic, MassPort controls airport operations and “the inclusion of Arlington, Belmont and Watertown on the CAC will ensure that our communities have a seat at the table,” said Brownsberger’s Legislative Aide Andrew Bettinelli.

The Cost of Too Much: Special Town Meeting To Pay $1.35 Million Snow Removal Bill

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The bill for snow removal is double the allocated amount.

It costs a lot to push aside nine feet of snow.

And the town is setting aside time at next month’s annual Town Meeting to pay the bill for removing the record snow that fell on Belmont’s thoroughfares this season.

The Special Town Meeting article – a meeting within the assembly – will take up the $1,348,000 expense incurred by the town this winter, more than double the $600,000 allocated for snow and ice removal in the fiscal 2015 budget.

“Typically, we expect 45 to 60 inches of snow, not 108 inches,” David Kale, Belmont’s Town Administrator, told the Belmont Board of Selectmen during its meeting, Tuesday, April 21. 

The $748,000 needed to bridge the funding gap exceeds the entire $400,000 general reserve account held by the Warrant Committee to resolve shortages for all of the town’s departments and the schools.

This comes at a time when the school budget is running a $500,000 shortfall in its current budget due to a spike in special education costs and higher enrollment.

The town will resolve both funding deficits with a combination of reserve accounts, the town’s free cash account and stabilization funds, according to Kale.

The snow and ice overage will be paid by using free cash and a portion of the Warrant Committee reserve fund, while the school budget shortage will be taking from the SPED fund with the balance transferred from the Warrant Committee’s fund.