Planning Board Member Blasts ‘Big Idea’, Calls For Chair’s Resignation

By 2 Comments

Photo: Pointed exchange; Charles Clark (left) calls for Chair Liz Allison’s resignation as Raffi Manjikian looks on.

In a fiery and personal rebuke, Planning Board member Chuck Clark called for the immediate removal of board’s chair, Liz Allison, for what he alleged has been the abuse of power in presenting a controversial proposal dubbed the “Big Idea” that would move the Belmont Public Library from Concord Avenue to Waverley Square as part of a public/private revitalization of the business center.

What was supposed to be a short recap by Allison of her observation of an Aug. 23 meeting of the Library Board of Library Trustees she attended quickly ignited where Clark made a series of Zola-esque accusations at the chair.

Raising his voice and pointing his finger at both Allison and fellow member Raffi Manjikian, Clark said the controversial proposal was being presented as a board plan when, in fact, it was the invention of the pair he charges of offering to the public a false narrative. 

“It’s not a ‘Big Idea.’ It’s a big lie,” said Clark, adding “I also think as a result [of] the actions that you’ve taken, you should resign as chair of the Planning Board and remove yourself from this process because I think you violated your responsibilities.” 

Clark’s declaration, which came as a surprise to everyone in the room – a quick poll of those in the room and via instant message by the Belmontonian found that no one could remember a similar outburst and call for a chair to vacate their position in Belmont in more than two decades – came shortly after he questioned Allison’s alleged overreach of the board’s mandate and jurisdiction in determining the library’s future.

“I didn’t think the Planning Board had any authority over the library. It has elected trustees. It’s their fiduciary responsibility to take care of the library. It’s not ours. It’s also not our place to post things and push something forward without thinking about it,” said Clark. 

After being accused of abuse of power and asked to resign, Allison matter-in-factly responded by noting that “[i]t does make it a little bit harder to move along to item 2b” on the agenda.

“Well, you can stay or go. It’s up to you,” Clark shot back. 

Just as it appeared that Clark and Allison would be continuing their tête-à-tête, Manjikian interjected by scolding his male colleague for infering that the bringing forward ideas such as public/private partnerships would lead to “your vigorous finger pointing is not the way to go.”

Clark then alleged Allison was “hijacking of the agenda” as an attempt not to discuss the issues at hand. 

“We’ll talk about this on the [Sept. 19],” said Clark. 

Clark would not speak after the meeting, only to say that he will continue to call for Allison to recuse herself as chair.

After completing work on the two scheduled agenda items, Allison circled back to the library, allowing Manjikian to say he hoped that future meeting could move from “affec-laden attacks” to “some point we can talk about the idea,” referring to the private/public development at the heart of the debate.

Allison said she would seek to make the Sept. 19 meeting “the most constructive discussion” on the proposal. 

Clark suggested that rather than focus on the “Big Idea” “we talk seriously about how do we begin to look at planning Waverley Square” noting there are a number of developments moving forward including a major commercial/residential project by developer (and former Planning Board member) Joseph DeStefano adjacent to the commuter rail bridge along Trapelo Road.

The Planning Board’s Karl Haglund said the small working group discussions – which produced the “Big Idea” – which have been popular for many government boards “have gotten off the rails.”

“I want to get back to where any two members of the Planning Board are meeting with anyone else that the full board be notified, so we are not surprised when a major proposal comes out,” he said.

Tuesday’s meeting was by far the most emotional associated with the suggested move of the library to Waverley Square since the so called “Big Idea” was first presented in July. Almost from the start, residents have questioned the Planning Board’s authority to submit this proposal. The opposition has been led by the Board of Library Trustees, the elected council that runs the library for the benefit of the town. 

At Tuesday’s night, Trustee Chair Kathleen Keohane made public a letter, dated Aug. 31, which requests the Planning Board to “dismiss” the Waverley Square proposal saying it “would not be in the Town’s or its citizen’s best interests.”

Keohane – who has led the charge against the proposal – reiterated points she made to the Planning Board and the public, that a suggested transfer of the library to Waverley Square (which Allison admitted comments her board has received on the move were running 90 to 10 in opposition) “is a distraction.” 

The Board of Library Trustees approved a new building after a feasibility study was completed on the present site.

“We prefer not to wait (until Sept. 19),” said Keohane. Despite favorable votes by Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen endorsing the current site for a new library, Keohane said having a competing proposal as well as agreeing to present an article for the creation of a new library building committee to the fall Special Town Meeting rather than in May has been damaging future private fundraising critical to the construction of the new structure.

More Than Road At Stake As Day School To (Maybe) Hear Planning Board’s Verdict

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Planning Board. 

In one way or another, the future of the Belmont Day School’s proposed development of a new gym/classroom structure and a roadway adjacent to the town’s active cemetery off of upper Concord Avenue reaches a critical crossroads at tonight’s meeting of the Belmont Planning Board to be held at the Beech Street Center at 7 p.m., Thursday, Aug. 31.

It will either be one which the private K-8 school will quickly move forward with a set of restrictions or remedies on the land and road, as it will attempt to have the new structure up and running a year from now.

Or due to a final minute legal roadblock thrown by a resident from across Concord Avenue, the school and town could begin a meandering retracing of what appeared to be agreements on contentious issues including the amount of landscaping along the road and the structure of the road itself.

Less than a month ago, it appeared the Planning Board – reduced to four members due to the recusal of Chair Liz Allison (she is an abutter to the school) and the resignation of Joseph DiStefano – was ready to end the four-month long design and site plan review as interim chair Barbara Fiacco announced that the board would “wrap up” its oversight by Aug. 14.

While the 25,000 sq.-ft. Multi-Use structure – dubbed the Barn – was relatively free of controversy, the same could not be said for the roadway which would allow the school a second avenue of access to and from Concord Avenue. Several residents making up two community groups opposed the road as introducing both traffic and safety problems to an already congested main thoroughfare. 

The school contends the new road would provide ease of entry and exit from the school which currently has just one street, Day School Lane, to access the campus.

In addition, the town’s Board of Cemetery Trustees and several people who own burial plots in Belmont’s Highland Meadow Cemetery contend the roadway will create a myriad of problems to the graveyard, including possible ground water and disturbance of the pastoral environs of peoples final resting places. The school believes that adequate landscaping will resolve the issue. 

But a final decision was rendered moot as the Board was the recipient of a local legal action by Concord Avenue resident Tim Duncan who contends in an Aug. 11 complaint he filed with the Belmont Town Clerk. He states the Planning Board violated the state’s Open Meeting Law by holding what was described as “working groups” with the Day School to resolve technical issues facing the project usually conducted between one person from either side. He contends the agreements hammered out in this setting were not legal as they were done behind closed doors, without adequate notice and without minutes of the meetings kept.

He contends the agreements hammered out in this setting were not legal as they were done behind closed doors, without adequate notice and without minutes of the meetings kept.

Tonight’s meeting will begin with the Planning Board – through the legal opinion of Town Counsel George Hall – answering Duncan’s complaint. If it continues to proceed with the meeting, the Planning Board will vote on any restrictions it believes is warranted to mitigate the creation of the road and building. Duncan has said if he doesn’t think the board or town is willing to answer the Open Meeting Law question, he will file a complaint with the state Attorney General.

But according to some who have reviewed the case, the Planning Board could delay a final resolution on the road and building to “redo” the working group sessions in a formal open meeting session. This would create a further pushing back of final order from the board and delay the building of the Barn and road possibly until the spring. 

Planning Board Accused of Violating Open Meeting Law In Day School Case

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Members of the Belmont Planning Board in June.

The town of Belmont has received a formal complaint from a resident who alleges the town’s Planning Board violated the state’s Open Meeting Law during the design and site plan review of a new building and roadway proposed by the Belmont Day School.

Tim Duncan, who lives across Concord Avenue from a proposed road leading into the private school, filed the complaint with the Town’s Clerk alleging the Board employed small “working groups” to supersede critical discussion that he believed should have been held during the public hearing process.

“[W]e need to make sure the rights of citizens to open, fair and transparent government are protected and respected,” said Duncan, an attorney who filed the complaint on Friday, Aug. 11, three days before what was expected to be the Aug. 14 meeting which the Planning Board was prepared to make its final ruling on the Day School’s proposal.

“The Planning Board’s actions were intentional,” he stated in his complaint to the state, saying residents and groups “with separate and equal interests” were “completely excluded” from participating in the three working groups between the Planning Board and the Day School. 

While he has taken his complaint to the town, Duncan is threatening to file with the Massachusetts Attorney General if the Planning Board does not “do the right thing and go back as necessary to address the problems and issues created by the working group meetings.”

If the Planning Board decides without having “properly” addressed the issues, Duncan will ask the state to annul the board’s decision as provided by the Open Meeting Laws.” 

The result: “That would likely mean that the entire site plan review process begin anew if the school still wanted to pursue its plan. It would also likely leave the parties in limbo until the Attorney General’s office makes its decision –  which could take some time,” he said.

The board has 14 business days to respond to the substance of the complaint.

In April, the private K-8 school brought to the town plans to build a 25,000 sq.-ft. Gymnasium and classroom space dubbed “The Barn” and a driveway/road running from Concord Avenue to the school, traveling adjacent to the town’s Highland Meadow Cemetery.

“It’s every bit as essential on the local level as it is in Washington and no person or organization should be able [to] maneuver or dance around the rules,” said Duncan, who has lived at 699 Concord Ave. for the past seven years.

Decision on Aug. 31

The Aug. 14  Planning Board continued the meeting to Thursday, Aug. 31 at 7 p.m. at the Beech Street Center.

“I felt it was prudent under consultation with [Town Counsel] George Hall and [Senior Town Planner] Jeffrey [Wheeler] to continue the substantive Belmont Day School meeting until we address the open meeting complaint,” said acting Planning Board Chair Barbara Fiacco at an abbreviated meeting Monday at the Beech Street Center.

Fiacco said the board would respond to the claim at the beginning of the Aug. 31 meeting before moving to the public meeting.

The complaint comes as the Planning Board was wrapping up its four-month long review of the project which many abutters and neighbors are highly critical, focusing their objection on the roadway which will create a second entry to the school. Complaints include safety concerns and gridlock worries caused by the one-way driveway, while supporters and those who own burial plots in the cemetery 

A staple of many governmental boards and committees in Belmont, a working group is a small appointed ad hoc group made up of a representative of the town body and the applicant to study a particular question. In most cases, the issue is quite specific; working groups in the Day School application focused on the landscape between the roadway and the cemetery and the construction and upkeep of the road. Once completed, the issue is brought back before the entire board for discussion.

Work Group: Efficient or In The Dark

In past conversations, representatives from town governing boards told the Belmontonian working groups allows subject-matter experts to “get into the weeds” on issues. In the landscaping working group, the board’s Karl Haglund who has a masters degree in landscape architecture from the Harvard Graduate School of Design met with the Day School’s landscape designer to discuss in detail what is needed to create a natural barrier that would satisfy the demands of the board.

While the working group allows for an efficient resolution to sometimes small issues between the two parties, the question of openness has been brought up in the past. In most cases, the working group is made up of only one or two governmental officials, which is less than a quorum which is the minimum number of members that must be present at any of meeting to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.

Also, while working groups are open to the public, many are not included in the public meeting calendar.

In Duncan’s view, the working groups created to discuss Day School issues violated the state’s Open Meeting Law (MGL 30A) because there were no public notice or any official minutes and, Duncan alleges, “the group meetings were not open to the public except for specific individuals who were invited … by the Applicant.”

“What I found most disturbing and problematic about the use of the working groups was that the time and locations of the meetings were not disclosed, and the public and other town officials were forbidden to attend these meetings, while Belmont Day School was apparently welcome to secretly  invite whomever they pleased,” he wrote to the Belmontonian.

In his complaint, Duncan said the closed nature of the proceedings allowed the board member in the working groups to “strongly influence the [Planning Board] in its thinking and direction” which defeats the idea of the group making the decision.

Also, Duncan also notes that quorum requirements were not met in any of the working group deliberations. He pointed to the AG’s Open Meeting Law Guide which he alleges views all working groups as “a separate Public Body” that must adhere to state law which requires open meetings and quorums. 

‘There are a very small number of very limited exceptions to the requirement that all meetings be open to the public and procedures that must be followed before a public body can close the door on citizens and I don’t see any indication that these were met or even considered,” said Duncan.

In Duncan’s view, the Day School proposal which impacts not only neighbors and abutters but also a town asset, the new cemetery, “[t]he Planning Board can’t and doesn’t have the resources to perform their designated role while also advocating and negotiating on behalf of the town on these matters.”

“It’s essential that the town designate other officials to work with town counsel and negotiate the matters separately with Belmont Day School, provide information to the Planning Board to inform the board’s decisions and take action as necessary to protect the town’s and residents’ interests,” he said.

Belmont Joins Opposition To MBTA Wi-Fi Poles

By Leave a Comment

Photo: MBTA commuter rail station at Waverley Square.

Belmont is joining a growing number communities in opposition to the installation of 320 75-foot tall mono-poles by the MBTA along commuter rail tracks including one slated for Thayer Road in Waverley Square.

Dubbing it a “silly idea,” Selectmen Chair Jim Williams joined his colleagues in voicing concerns to the regional transportation authority’s plan to construct the towers to improve Wi-Fi service to passengers riding the rails.

The pole in Belmont will be located adjacent to 33-39 Thayer Road on the Waltham side of the tracks, said Jefferey Wheeler of the Office of Community Development who attended a recent community meeting by the MBTA’s Fiscal and Management Control Board to discuss the $150 million project.

While the tracks are 20 feet below the street’s grade, the pole will still be as tall as a five-story tall building when installed.

The MBTA said the project – which is an underground fiber-optic cable which utilizes the pole to project the wireless network to the trains – will eliminate “dead spots” along the four commuter rail lines it services. 

Wheeler said the MBTA told the meeting it only needs the first 35 feet of the pole to send its signal while the remaining 40 feet is expected to the rented to mobile phone carriers to supply their service to trains and the surrounding neighborhoods.

The MBTA entered into an agreement in 2014 with a private company which will share revenue from sponsorships, infrastructure leasing, and a premium wireless service.

Selectman Adam Dash was critical of the lack of transparency from the MBTA stating the authority only sent the notification to the town of its intentions through the Belmont Historic District Commission and not the Selectmen or Town Administrator.

While the town can express its opposition to the project, the MBTA is exempt from local zoning bylaws restricting height and appearance as the structures are being constructed on the authority’s right of way along the tracks. Wheeler pointed out that cell phone carriers which will have the right to use the upper half off of the pole – up to three carriers will able to use that space – are likely to have extending “arms” and wires.

The selectmen are advising residents who are opposed to the project to contact the MBTA Fiscal and Management Control Board, Gov. Charlie Baker, Mass. Secretary of Transportation Stephanie Pollack, State Rep. Dave Roger, and State Sen. Will Brownsberger to share your concerns with this proposal.

Joseph Aiello, Chairman

Fiscal Management Control Board

State Transportation Building

10 Park Plaza

Boston, MA 02116

Governor Charlie Baker

Massachusetts State House
Office of the Governor
Room 280
Boston, MA 02133

To email Governor Baker’s Office use the link below:

http://www.mass.gov/governor/constituent-services/contact-governor-office/

Stephanie Pollack

Secretary and CEO Department of Transportation

Ten Park Plaza Suite 4160

Boston, Ma 02116

Telephone: 857-368-4636

 

State Rep. David M. Rogers

Massachusetts State House

24 Beacon St

Boston, MA 02133

Dave.Rogers@mahouse.gov

 

State Sen. William N. Brownsberger

Massachusetts State House

24 Beacon St

Boston, MA 02133

William.Brownsberger@masenate.gov

Selectmen Approve Three Traffic/Parking Changes

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The new traffic restrictions on Concord Avenue.

The Belmont Board of Selectmen approved three recommendations from the town’s Traffic Advisory Committee which will free up parking, allow greater space for a school bus drop off and hamper cars from using side streets as cut throughs.

Community Development Director Glenn Clancy presented the proposals to the board at last Monday’s, July 31 Selectmen meeting.

• A request by the Belmont Board of Library Trustees that the five to six parking spaces before the entrance to the library’s parking lot on Concord Avenue be restricted to four hours of free parking was approved. The trustees and library staff noticed that at times the spaces are taken up for several hours, whether by residents visiting the Underwood Pool or used by commuters who walk the short distance to the commuter rail station. With space in the library’s parking lot usually filled, it is critical that parking spaces turn over during the day to allow patrons to visit the library.

• Parking is now prohibited during specific hours on the odd side of Sharpe Street adjacent to the Burbank Elementary School. The changes, requested by Burbank Principal Tricia Clifford and the school’s PTA Safe Routes to School Committee, were to accommodate a new bus route that will ease traffic and increase safety on School Street. In the past, the bus would stop on the busy School Street, while now the bus will discharge/pick up students at this new Sharpe Street turn-in.

The changes include:

  • Restricting parking on the odd side of Sharpe, Monday thru Friday, 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.;
  • Restrict parking on the odd side of the curve along 39 Sharpe, Monday thru Friday from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.;
  • Restrict parking on the even side of the curve adjacent to 42 Sharpe, Monday thru Friday from  8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.; and
  • Change the current sign in the new bus turn-in to read: “School Bus Access Only, No Parking, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.”

• Residents on Ernest Road had seen an increasing number of drivers who found a “short cut” using their street to avoid the long line of vehicles during the morning rush on Clifton Street. Either through trial and error or using the traffic and navigation internet app Waze, drivers were taking Prospect Street to Ernest before turning onto Stella Road that leads into Pleasant Street.

To discourage the action of drivers, a stop sign was placed at the intersection of Stella and Ernest, and a sign is up at Prospect and Ernest restricting access to the street from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. Monday thru Friday.

While discussing whether to approve the restriction, Clancy told the board that both signs are already up for several weeks.

‘Who’s in charge here?” Selectmen Chair Jim Williams in mocked horror.

Clancy said there had been a long history concerning the Selectmen and whether they need to know every sign Clancy and the Traffic Advisory Committee installs. In fact, the Ernest Road restrictions were only brought before the Selectmen because the Belmont Police said they would not enforce the new signs unless that the board approved their placement.

It was the majority opinion of the Selectmen that this iteration of the board would like to be informed of all signs and new regulations on town streets.

 

New Thayer Road Landmark: A 75 Foot Pole Thanks To MBTA

By Leave a Comment

Photo: MBTA in Belmont

It will be easier to find Thayer Road next year if the MBTA has its way.

The out-of-the-way road – two roads as it splits half way down the street before entering Waltham – behind Sycamore Street on the western edge of Belmont could soon have its own landmark as the regional transportation system is proposing to place a 75 feet tall monopole on its right-of-way next to the Fitchburg line commuter rail tracks. 

Since the pole will be on MBTA property, it is exempt from local zoning bylaws. 

According to interim Belmont Town Manager Phyllis Marshall who spoke before the Board of Selectmen on Monday, July 31, the MBTA isn’t singling out Belmont as it is planning to install 300 of the poles in 60 communities along all its commuter rail lines to improve the WiFi and internet service on its trains. One mitigating factor in Belmont: the rail bed is about 20 feet below grade so the pole’s height will appear approximately 55 feet tall. 

Currently, any construction associated with the $150 million project – which was finalized between the state and a private company which will share in revenue from sponsorships, infrastructure leasing, and a premium wireless service – has been put on hold. After a growing number of communities on the North Shore protested the planned poles, a 30-day review was initiated by the MBTA to hear more comments on the project. 

After a growing number of communities on the North Shore protested the planned poles, a 30-day review was initiated by the MBTA to hear more comments on the project. And two weeks ago, the Massachusetts congressional delegation asked the Federal Communications Commission to “carefully” review the T’s application. 

But Marshall said the review will soon be completed. It is unknown when or if the project will come to Belmont.

Offering his opinion, Selectmen Chair Jim Williams wondered why a new installation for internet service is needed as his smart phone works just fine on the trains.

Light Board Cuts Ties With Belmont Light GM, Will Not Renew Contract

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Jim Palmer before the Light Board.

The Belmont Light Board announced Monday, July 31, that it would not extend an offer for a new contract to Belmont Light General Manager Jim Palmer. 

The decision by the three member board – the Light Board is made up of the Board of Selectmen – was made after an hour-long executive session. 

“The parties have reached a mutual understanding that the general manager’s contract will not be renewed,’ said Board Chair Jim Williams reading from a statement. A severance agreement and a possible part in the transition to find a new general manager was provided to Palmer.

The decision came two weeks after a contentious meeting between the board and Palmer during the general manager’s performance review which revealed a growing chasm between Palmer and other department heads in town. 

“It was time for a change,” Board member Mark Paolillo told the Belmontonian. “It was the right breaking point with the contract up and the substation complete.” 

“We need a general manager that is willing to work with the town and collaborate with department heads and because of that change was necessary,” he said.

An emotional Palmer told the board that he took over the general manager’s position seven years ago, Belmont Light “was in turmoil” and he accepted the job to protect his fellow workers. “I wasn’t taking the job for me but for the employees,” he said.

Palmer was the Light Department’s director of operation when in October 2010 he took over for Tim Richardson who was pressured to resign after irregularities in the department.

“Everything I’ve done has been being to the betterment of the town of Belmont” and that Belmont Light is now “like a jewel and you don’t want to lose it.” He recalled the construction of the new Blair Pond substation which will meet the town’s electrical needs for nearly 40 years as “the pinnacle” of his time as manager but the “stress of that project probably led to my demise, and that’s fine. I’m OK with that.” 

After the brief meeting, Palmer told the Belmontonian that the department had a lot of positive accomplishments in the nearly seven years since he was named interim manager, including the difficulties of building and then selling the new substation. Palmer reiterated that the stress of the work did create problems with others official in town, “at the end of the day, there is only so much you can do.” 

“You can’t dance with everybody,” said Palmer.

“I did the best I could do but … people want a fresh start,” he said. “And if you want a fresh start, you replace the top executive. It happens all the time in business. That’s what it is.” 

Palmer said all his memories in Belmont had been good ones, and it has been a “learning experience. And I’m going to take what I’ve learned with me and applying it where ever I may end up.” 

Library Supporters Tell Planning Board Its ‘Big Idea’ Is Not So Grand

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Kathleen Keohane speaking before the Planning Board. Selectman Mark Paolillo stands next to Keohane.

In a possible preview of the anticipated encounter before the Library Board of Trustees tentatively scheduled for Aug. 24, the Belmont Planning Board heard at its Tuesday, Aug. 1 meeting a less than enthusiastic response to its ‘Big Idea’ of placing a new town library in a private development in Waverley Square.

In fact, the overwhelming sentiment of library supporters Tuesday and in emails and letters sent to the Planning Board since it announced the preliminary proposal last month, have been far from affirming, according to Board Chair Liz Allison.

“The overall tone … is negative,” said Allison, so much so that the numerous unfavorable responses the Planning Board received could be placed into four broad categories (process, substance, misunderstanding and global reactions) with their own subsets. Some responses, noted Allison, included language that best not be used over the cable network broadcasting the meeting.

The proposal dubbed the “big idea” by the Planning Board’s Raffi Manjikian who suggested the scheme, would place a new library at the present location of the Belmont Car Wash combined with a senior housing center in a multi-use development. The library would be built by a private developer who would then lease back the facility to the town.

“[Waverley Square] is a center that has languished for more than 50 years,” said Manjikian, who said the proposal was part of an “exercise” to revitalize an important “community center” that has more people in Belmont than any other section of town. The Planning Board’s Barbara Fiacco said it was an opportunity for the town to be proactive in creating a new vibrant neighborhood rather than playing catch up to future development.

But for library supporters, the big idea is a big fail in more than just where the library would be located but also how it was presented to the community in July. 

“I think we got off on the wrong foot,” said Kathleen Keohane, the chair of the Library Trustees who has been leading the charge in questioning both the idea and the process in which it was presented to the public.

“When you read this concept, this ‘big idea’ that’s characterized as the ‘library proposal’ … when there is no discussion with the key stakeholders who are in charge of managing the building, I think we had a process [breakdown],” said Keohane.

“I think publishing [the proposal] with pictures was off putting to me personally and to many folks,” she said. 

She said the library has recently finished an extensive a year-and-a-half long feasibility study that showed “great engagement from the community” for keeping the library at its current location on Concord Avenue within walking distance to five of six public schools and close by to Belmont Center, the town’s business hub.

“You need to respect the input that we got,” Keohane told the Planning Board.

Those who spoke at the meeting voiced a myriad of concerns with moving the library to the heart of Waverley Square. Azra Nelson of Vincent Avenue expressed “alarm” on adding library traffic and the associated parking demands to an area that is already congested with vehicles while Jessica Bennett of Thornbridge Road said it was “really unsettled” that something as important to the public as the library would not be in the town’s possession. Following in Bennett’s lead, Mary Lewis from Precinct 1 that it “insanity” for the town not to build a new library with interest rates at such low levels. She joined others who questioned the roll out of the plan in the summer when residents are away and not following the news. 

In response, the Planning Board’s Manjikian said the impetus for the proposal was not in response to one of the three owners of the land stretching along South Pleasant Street from the car wash to just north of the Cityside Subaru location who are contemplating developing their properties (“Yes, it’s going to happen,” said Manjikian).

Rather, the “idea” is just that, said Manjikian, giving the Planning Board and the town the opportunity to revitalize the area while also seeking a creative way to assist in solving the town’s challenge of renovating or building four critical capital projects; the high school, police station, library and Department of Public Works.

With a total cost of $262 million to “fix” the outstanding capital projects, Board of Selectman Mark Paolillo said it would be difficult to find the votes at Town Meeting or among voters to approve four debt exclusions and a possible town operating override over a short period.

“We will need creative solutions to solve all these issues,” he told the Belmontonian after the meeting.

Keohane did leave the door open for the library trustees to join the Planning Board and other stakeholders to assist in solving the major capital building. 

“I think we are at an early stage and this is the time to brainstorm and get ideas from people, pros, and cons of what they are looking for, and I think that’s starting tonight with public input and follow up … to share their comments, whatever that might be,” she said.

Final Day of Winter Street Repaving Underway Wednesday, Aug. 2

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Perkins truck ready to go.

On Wednesday, August 2, Hudson-based E.H. Perkins will begin paving the final section of Winter Street between Concord Avenue and the Lexington town line.

Work will begin at 6 a.m. with the hope of completing the work in one day. The road will be closed, and delays are expected during construction hours between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. Residents and Commuters are advised to seek alternate routes.

Winter Street residents will not have vehicular access to their homes and properties during work hours. 

For any questions or concerns about the project, contact Arthur O’Brian, resident engineer in the Office of Community Development, at 617-993-2665.

State Rep Rogers’ Bill Protecting Pregnant Workers Signed Into Law

By Leave a Comment

Photo: State Rep. Dave Rogers speaking at the bill signing.

Pregnant workers in Massachusetts now have a new law providing them more protections in the work place thanks to Belmont State Rep. Dave Rogers.

Saying the legislation was “overdue,” Gov. Charlie Baker signed on Thursday, July 27 the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act written and championed by Rogers and State Sen. Joan Lovely, which requires employers offer “reasonable accommodations” to pregnant workers and makes it illegal to fire or refuse to hire a worker due to a pregnancy.

Accomondations expecting workers can expect include is provided a temporary transfer to a less strenuonus position, be given a chair to sit on and provided increased restroom visits. After they give birth, businesses are required to provide time and a location for nursing mothers. 

Massachusetts joins 18 states which have similar legal protections.