Belmont Joins Ranks With Communities on Gas Leak Legislation

By 1 Comment

Photo: Yvonne Brown (left) and Jennifer Marusiak of Mothers Out Front.

The rotten egg smell associated with leaking natural gas – it’s actually a chemical additive called mercaptan – is an annoyance that dampens your outdoor activities or forces windows to be closed on summer nights. But the problem of leaking gas mains goes beyond the odor it emanates; the hydrocarbon mixture is harming the environment and draining resident’s pocketbooks.

That’s the warning Jennifer Marusiak of Chester Road and Yvonne Brown of Highland Road brought to the Belmont Board of Selectmen on Monday, June 27, as they sought the board’s backing for state legislation that would put a modest plug in what has become an epidemic throughout the state.

“It’s serious that we have these uncontrolled leaks in every Belmont neighborhood and the consequences are to climate change,” said Marusiak, who with Brown are members of the Belmont chapter of Mothers Out Front, a national grassroots organization seeking to implement policies to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy.

And with the Selectmen’s official endorsement of the legislation making its way through Beacon Hill, Belmont joins 36 communities across Massachusetts supporting the effort to limit the level of gas leaks statewide.

In a comprehensive analysis of Belmont by Mother’s Out Front reported in the May/June Belmont Citizens Forum newsletter, there are 80 gas leaks throughout town – the majority in the heavily residential neighborhoods inside an area bordered by Trapelo Road, Pleasant Street, Concord Avenue and Grove Street –  part of the 20,000 leaks statewide that is spewing tons of methane into the atmosphere.
Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 1.32.34 PM

‘[Methane] has been described as carbon on steroids,” Marusiak said of the greenhouse gas that’s nearly 90 percent more efficient than CO2 in trapping heat. It also exacerbates the effects of asthma and kills trees.

In addition to the environmental damage, the leaks cost ratepayers and consumers $90 million annual in lost product, which could power 200,000 homes each year.

The reason leaks occur is due to an aging infrastructure, said Marusiak. National Grid, the gas utility in Massachusetts, told Mom’s Out Front that half the pipes running through town are cast iron or unprotected steel “which makes them leak-prone” due to changing temperatures and corrosion, said Marusiak.

National Grid will repair leaks immediately if they are indoors and in an enclosed space with the real potential of an explosion, she said. There is a second level of severity are pipes that could become dangerous if they are close to residential buildings, but the company can wait six months before fixing them.

All other leaks don’t have any timeframe on repairs, which has resulted in two Belmont locations which have had been leaking gas since 1996, said Marusiak.

“And the shocking thing [about replacing leaking pipes] it has absolutely nothing to do with the volume [escaping] … they could sit there forever,” Marusiak said, noting that National Grid acknowledged it doesn’t know the volume of escaping gas from any of the Belmont problem areas.

The women were seeking backing on two bills in front of the state legislature on Beacon Hill: House 2870 would prohibit company from passing on costs from leaks to customer – this bill has been sent to a Study Committee – while Senate 1767 would mandate utilities check for leaks when roads with gas pipes are dug up, and fix any leaks found within one calendar year.

“The support from towns are vital,” said Marusiak. “The main benefit of passing this resolution is to keep up the pressure by saying ‘we need action now’.”

“This is an issue that the town itself can’t do and so political pressure that you’re proposing is the only way to get action,” said Selectman Jim Williams, who joined Chair Mark Paolillo and Selectman Sami Baghdady to sponsor an official resolution backing the measures.

Despite a stall on the House bill and the Senate measure still to be voted on to be included in the Senate’s omnibus energy legislation, Marusiak said communities, citizens, and groups “will just continue to keep on pushing for its passage, now or in the next session.” 

Minuteman To Hold District-Wide Vote Sept. 20 To OK $144M Building Project

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont may have voted no, but it could be on the hook for nearly $500,000 in annual costs to construct a new regional technical school.

Belmont may have voted “no” in May, but that hasn’t stopped the Minuteman School Committee from getting a second bite at the apple to approve a $100 million bonding issue to build a new regional technical school on the Lexington/Littleton town line.

On Monday, June 27, the school’s school committee voted 12-1 with one abstention to bring a referendum to build the school to the entire 14 community district.

The vote – funded by the Minuteman School Committee – will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 20 from noon to 8 p.m. 

“It’s a simple vote across all the [d]istrict towns,” said Edward Bouquillon, Minuteman’s Superintendent-Director in a statement issued on June 28.

“It’s done on the same day during the same hours. The votes are totaled. If there are more “yes” votes than “no” votes, the project is approved,” he said.

According to data from Minuteman Tech, renovations and repairs are projected to cost local taxpayers roughly $100 million and take six to ten years to complete. With the MSBA grant, the local share would be roughly the same amount, to be paid by local taxpayers and by out-of-district communities through a new capital fee assessed by the state.

The new vote comes about two months after a Special Town Meeting overwhelmingly rejected the bonding issue, the only Town Meeting to vote down the proposal that would saddled Belmont with an annual bill of $350,000 to $500,000 to pay for its portion of the nearly $100 million to build the school.

And despite Belmont having expressed its opinion on the issue and while many in town would like the town to commit its own “Brexit”-style departure from the district, “it has there really is no practical way for Belmont to leave the District before the vote is taken. It’s simply not possible,” said Jack Weis, Belmont’s representative to the Minuteman School Committee.

In the view of the Minuteman officials, they were left with only one option after Belmont’s legislative body rebuffed the proposal.

“We tried the traditional Town Meeting route and won by overwhelming margins just about everywhere,” said Bouquillon, winning approval in the other 13 Town Meetings. “But we were unable to make the case properly in one town [Belmont] and, given the rules of this process, that was enough to require going directly to citizens through a formal referendum.”

In hopes of saving a $44 million grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority to build the school, said Bouquillon, the Minuteman School Committee will submit the issue directly to the voters of its member towns.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, June 28, Minuteman and officials from other communities in the Minuteman district met with Belmont officials on June 20 “to determine whether Minuteman should attempt to bring the matter back to Belmont Town Meeting or, alternatively, go to a referendum.”

Under the town meeting approval process, the project could only move forward if no member town voted to object. 

Belmont officials told the committee there was no indication that Town Meeting members would change their opposition to the project which it considers far too large for the number of students coming from district communities.

“[The] sensible course would be to proceed directly to referendum,” said Bouquillon. “Fortunately, state law gives multi-town districts such as Minuteman a second option for getting capital projects approved.”

“Under the new Regional Agreement, any community can petition to leave the District at any time.  The first step is to have a Special Town Meeting and to have the two-thirds of the Town Meeting members vote in favor of leaving. But, the actual departure isn’t effective for three years after that. So, there is no way to leave the District before the vote is taken.

Even if Belmont could decamp from the district, “communities are still obligated for their share of any debt incurred prior to the withdrawal date,” said Weis.

Dog Owners Seek To Keep Belmont’s Current Off-Leash Regs

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The public meeting on the town’s existing off-leash regulations.

Just how passionate many (or is that most) dog owners are of their pets can be found in the phrase from the famous wildlife writer Roger Caras: “If you don’t own a dog … there is not necessarily anything wrong with you, but there may be something wrong with your life.”

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that nearly 60 dog owners and their friends jammed into the Board Of Selectmen’s Room at Town Hall on a beautiful first day of summer, Monday, June 20, to speak at a public meeting on the town’s existing off-leash regulations.

Belmont Board of Health Chair David Alper called the meeting to hear from all sides on the permit program that allows pets to run unencumbered.

IMG_2983

Belmont Board of Health Chair David Alper (center) with board members Donna David (left) and Julie C. Lemay.

“We three are here to listen to you,” said Alper, referring to his board colleagues, Donna David and Julie C. Lemay. “We want as much information as we can get about the current situation … plus or negative.”

The off-leash program requires dogs and their owners meet with Belmont’s Animal Control Officer, John Maguranis, for a pet behavior assessment and a review of the regulations. While the Board of Health sets the rules, the program is run through the Recreation Department, which has a strict 200 permit annual limit while the town has more than 1,600 registered dogs.

Alper said the nexus for the meeting was a steady stream of letters to the board expressing “unhappiness” of the program which dogs were becoming a nuisance to pedestrians or scaring children in playgrounds and open spaces around town.

Those complaints were joined by the ever-present issue of dog “waste” on playgrounds shared by youth sports and residents seeking passive enjoyment.

For dog owners, the status quo is far more satisfying than any conceivable alternative. Many of the owners told how their pets are becoming more socialized and easier to handle by being taken to the open parks.

“This is one thing that Belmont does better than any town around us … where owners can take their dogs to run and play and chase balls,” said Susan Demb from Louise Road, who spoke for many in the audience. 

But for one meeting participant, the program is “not always amazing,” Azra Nelson of Vincent Avenue said over 12 years of using Belmont parks she has found some dog owners “rude and expect their dogs can run to anybody and anywhere, not picking up while pestering kids and other people” where now her children are now scared of dogs.

“I pick up this sense of entitlement that ‘My dog can do whatever and that should be, OK because they are friendly,” said Nelson, who suggested “clearer rules” be set for owners who are socializing or ignoring situations when their pets are jumping on people.

In an apparent act of contrition, owners admitted that there were some “bad” owners operating “on the fringe,” who don’t collar their pets or pick up after them. It is those few outliers that owners say are hurting the doggy community. 

“When I see a dog misbehaving, I’m more mad than someone else who’s not a dog owner; I feel like you’re threatening my dog’s ability to have fun and my ability to have fun and you’re harming my park. And that irresponsibility doesn’t belong in our town,” said Scott Abrams of King Street.

Abrams said there were plenty of examples of youth sports participants who are just as ambivalent to rules concerning picking up after them or of residents to shot off “fireworks” at PQ Park, “so everyone can be a little bit more responsible.”

While dog parks – fenced in enclosures set aside for unleashed canines – are popping up in many communities (Arlington, Waltham, and Cambridge) surrounding Belmont and garnered some support Monday, most owners said the facilities are not large enough to allow for the amount and quality of running and socializing their pets need.

“They end up becoming hard-packed dirt patches where there’s not enough room for a dog to run and play,” said Johanna Swift Hart of Hull Street.

The consensus from the dog owner’s was that easy to read signage and notification on “correct” behavior and hours and times off-leash dogs can be in Belmont’s parks would be the first step in minimizing the conflicts between the animals and people.
They also advised an easily recognizable off-leash permit for the dog’s collar should be used to ID those pets that are licensed to run as well as owners volunteering their dogs for a program on how children should approach a dog. 

For many residents, the program is more than just for their pets.

“We were drawn to this area because it seems to be both common to people who have children and people who like [dogs] and this would be a great place to have both,” said Rachel Kilmer, who with her husband, have discovered the owners have bonded and have formed friendships through their use of the parks.

“It’s a really important thing to have in the community that brings people together,” said Kilmer. 

Dog Park Part of Discussion at Monday’s Meeting On Off Leash Program

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The dog park that recently opened in Waltham. 

Is it time for Belmont to have its own dog park, join its neighboring towns to provide a separate area to allow pets the chance to play and socialize. 

Watertown (2014) and Waltham (2015) have recently opened enclosed off-leash areas that Fido can run like the wind. Arlington his its own park while Cambridge has eight including two near to Fresh Pond on the Belmont line. 

A Belmont dog park will be one of several issues brought up on Monday, June 20 at 5:30 p.m. when the Board of Health holds a public hearing on the town’s off leash dog program.

David Alper, chair of the Board of Health, told the Belmontonian no policy changes will be issued at Monday’s meeting.

“We hope to hear from residents on the current policy and listen to any ideas they may have,” said Alper. The long-time chair has said a dog park, which is becoming the norm in communities, is one area that is worthy of discussion.

The current off-leash program in Belmont allows dog owners a large amount of leeway when and where they can run their pets. Owners need only obtain a $40 yearly permit ($30 for the second dog) from the town – which requires the licensed dog and owner meet with Belmont’s Animal Control Officer, for a pet behavior assessment and a review of the regulations. 

The couple can then go to six Belmont athletic fields – Belmont High School Fields, Winn Brook, Grove Street, Pequossette Field and Town Field – to run as long as they clean up after their pet and defer to requests from town and school officials on use. Newton has a similar program. 

A 2016 Permit Application can be found at the Health Department’s web page. 

Cracks Won’t Prevent Underwood Pool From Opening, Saturday, June 18

By 1 Comment

Photo: The pool filled with water on Tuesday.

A few weeks back, a rumor was being spread in the local Starbucks/Dunkin’ Donuts that cracks – described as anywhere between “significant” to “devastating” – were discovered at the bottom of both Underwood pools as the less-than-a-year-old complex was being readied for its first full season scheduled to begin Saturday, June 18.

The people who said they heard the damage would result in the coming swimming season to be:

  1. delayed,
  2. suspended,
  3. closed forever;

and would lead to the pool being:

  1. repaired with the cracks costing a king’s ransom,
  2. forced to have the flooring ripped out and rebuilt, and 
  3. ruined beyond all hope.

But ask Anne Paulsen, the chair of the Underwood Pool Building Committee, the particulars of the rumors, and she will tell you one thing: “If the Health Department gives us the OK, [the pools] will be open on schedule.”

So if the chemical analysis of the water pumped into the twin pools this week is up to standards, the 2016 season will open to the public at 10 a.m. on Saturday. (Current forecast over the weekend is for sun with the highs in the low 80s). 

So, what about the “major” cracks lining the bottom of the pool?

First, Paulsen was not happy to hear two weeks ago there was structural issues, even if they turned out to be hairline cracks mostly located in the shallow pool and on the deck. 

“It is less than a year old, so it was disconcerting what was discovered,” said Paulsen, who led the group that supervised the construction of the facility. 

According to Department of Public Works Director Jay Marcotte, the cracks – due to the pool walls expanding and contracting as the ground settles and shifts – were superficial and were not affecting the structural integrity of the swimming pool.

“We cleaned out the cracks and repaired it with an epoxy which did the job,” Marcotte told the Belmontonian.

In addition to the repairs, the deep end pool was repainted, said Paulsen. 

A few days later, before the Special Town Meeting on Monday, June 13, Paulsen gave members an update on the pool in the coming season. She told Town Meeting that the pool:

  • will have new shade structures (like umbrellas) along the edge of the pool to provide sun protection,
  • paper towels will be replaced by electric hand dryers in the bathrooms,
  • The crosswalk and sidewalk on Cottage Street will be completed.
  • In the fall an irrigation system will be installed to protect plants from the summer heat, and
  • vending machines are now located at the facility.

IMG_2168 IMG_2171 IMG_2175 IMG_2182

For information on the pool, activities and membership, head over the Recreation Department’s website. 

Saying that 450 residents have signed up for passes, Paulsen advised the members to get theirs soon, “and enjoy the pool.”

Panic In The Center: Leonard Street Partially Closed Next 3 Days

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Construction on Leonard Street begins today.

If you thought the seemingly endless construction in Belmont Center couldn’t make traveling through the town’s commercial hub any worse, the next three days will prove that assumption wrong.

Starting today, Wednesday, June 15 at 7 a.m. and ending – hopefully – on Friday, June 17, Leonard Street northbound will be closed due to road construction up to Alexander Avenue. Construction hours are expected to be from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

This means:

  • Southbound traffic – from Pleasant and Clifton streets – on Leonard Street will be unaffected,
  • Northbound Leonard Street traffic – coming from Concord Avenue – will be detoured beginning at the underpass of the Commuter Rail bridge. Vehicles will turn onto Channing Road, take a left on Cross Street, another left on Alexander Avenue before joining Leonard Street. 

In addition, there will be no On-Street parking on either side of Leonard Street from Alexander Avenue to 80 Leonard Street, the Belmont Café during construction hours. 

The work will include excavating the existing pavement, placing gravel and grading for new pavement and on Friday, asphalt and pave Alexander Avenue and Leonard Street.

Refer to the Town of Belmont website for additional information or call 617-993-2665 with any concerns.

Breaking: Waverley Station To Remain Open for 10 More Years

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Waverley Station.

It’s not used by many riders, it’s difficult to get around and it’s in need of a great deal of maintenance. And that’s what the MBTA says about Waverley Station, which runs the commuter rail station in the heart of Belmont’s Waverley Square.

But it now appears that all of Waverley Station’s shortcomings are the major factors which will allow the Fitchburg Line stop to remain open for the next decade, according to Belmont State Sen. Will Brownsberger.

In an e-mail announcement dated Tuesday, June 14, the state’s Architectural Access Board – which in 2014 deemed the station a liability for people with limited access to use the facility – has given the MBTA a 10-year time variance before needed repairs or a new station is required to improve accessibility for riders. 

The announcement came after nearly a year in which the MBTA actively sought to close down the nearly century-old station and create a new stop along South Pleasant Street. That plan was deemed unacceptable by many residents surrounding Waverley Square and the MBTA dropped that plan earlier in the year.

In its decision, the AAB in a letter to the MBTA noted that since the Waverley Station has some of the lowest ridership numbers in the system – only 117 daily passengers arrive or depart from the stop – the board is placing higher priority on improvements at 69 stations and bus stops with much higher use. It also cited a cost of $15 million to $30 million to bring the station up to AAB standards

“[D]ue to the low ridership and high cost to create access, Waverley Station is not considered a ‘priority station’,” read the letter from the AAB to the MBTA explaining the 10 year variance. 

Last Night Of Annual Town Meeting At The Chenery On Monday at 7PM

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont’s 2016 Town Meeting concludes tonight.

The 2016 Town Meeting will reconvene on Monday, June 13 at Chenery Middle School Auditorium beginning promptly at 7 p.m.

With just a few articles remaining, it’s likely the annual meeting of the town’s legislative body will conclude Monday.

Tonight’s agenda include:

  • Articles 17 (de-authorization of the borrowing for the Underwood Pool and distribution on the bond premiums)
  • Article 13 (authorization of up-front funds for Chapter 90 highway funds), and
  • Article 14 (Capital expenditures by the Capital Budget Committee)

There will also be a Special Town Meeting for the conveyance from the state to the town of the former incinerator site on upper Concord Avenue.

No amendments have been filed so all votes will be on the articles.

The meeting will begin with the Belmont Energy Committee providing information to members on 

  • Examples of Belmont Energy Efficiency and Carbon Reduction Programs (Sept. 2010 – May 2016)
  • Full report of updated carbon emissions inventory for Belmont, March 2016.

 

Police Hope A ‘Yes’ On Incinerator Site Provides Them With New Home

By 3 Comments

Photo: Belmont Police Chief Richard McLaughlin in the hallway that serves as a booking area.

When the Belmont Police Department Headquarters opened in 1931, it was a modern marvel among police stations in Greater Boston, a spacious, three-level facility with an indoor shooting range, a full-service garage, and plenty of room to allow officers to go about their job of keeping residents safe.

But in its ninth decade, the now threadbare building at the corner of Pleasant and Concord Avenue is not just on its last legs; it’s down for the count. Age has caught up with the landmark building across the street from Town Hall, and there’s not much time remaining to find a solution.

“It has served the town well, but it hasn’t kept pace with the times or technology,” said Police Chief Richard McLaughlin last month. “It can’t get any better, and that’s the reality.”

While the deteriorating condition of the building has been a concern for the past 20 years – at one point, the building leaked so freely that during torrential rains streams of water would collect on the walls – a likely solution will come before a Special Town Meeting tonight, Monday, June 13 as the members vote to accept or reject the conveyance from the state the former incinerator site on upper Concord Avenue.

For police leaders, a positive result on tonight’s vote could be the first step in locating a new police station “and that is something we would like to build on,” said McLaughlin.

IMG_3659

Belmont Asst. Chief James MacIsaac at holding cells.

A tour of the station puts into stark focus the challenges facing the personnel who work in a structure opened when Herbert Hoover was president. Around every corner and cranny, in antiquated rooms with Depression-era push button light switches and every spare space, the business of modern law enforcement is running headlong into an intractable past.

The dual liabilities of a cramped working environment (the station is about 15,000 square feet) and an inefficient layout has created a hodgepodge of competing uses. Utility closets are stuffed with boxes of paperwork that the Department are mandated to have on hand while the booking area was cobbled out of a hallway. The wiring and connections that run the department’s communication system are jerry-rigged in a web of cables in a small basement enclave while the evidence locker doubles as storage space for bottled water. It’s a scene only a hardcore hoarder would appreciate.

Personal space: Nil

Caught in the middle are those who work at the facility. Personal space is next to nil for officers as detectives who are located on the second floor (accessible only by a single staircase in violation of federal and state access regulations) are cheek-to-jowl requiring them to leave the room to make phone calls. The men’s changing room is cramped with a feel of a junior high school locker room. 

But it’s the place reserved for female officers – never imagined by the architects who designed the building – that is the greatest cringe-worthy space as the women are squeezed into a rabbit hutch – part storage area, changing room, bathroom facility all in one location – about the size of the men’s bathroom. 

McLaughlin said a recent updating of the public area through the front door has hampered this efforts to impress on the town the department needs a new station house. 

“People come see the lobby and say ‘what’s the problem?’,” said McLaughlin, as he walks around tires placed on in a hall in the basement.

“[The public] don’t understand the operational challenges that we deal with every day,” he noted.

While much of the problems lead to a discomfort for personnel, the building’s lack of modern public safety infrastructure has real world implications such as when a person is “booked” in the building. 

In a contemporary station, a police vehicle enters a secured enclosed area called a “sally port” where the officer will first ensure their weapon and keys before taking the prisoner in the building, removing any temptation to escape or turn on the officer.

But due to the finite parking area in which the building it situated, “we don’t have that luxury,” said James MacIsaac, Belmont’s assistant police chief, demonstrating to a visitor how an officer must escort a prisoner to the station from the parking lot. It is at that point when some arrestees will decide they no longer want to be going to jail. 

“And we had them bolt out to Belmont Center,” said McLaughlin.

Outdated infrastructure places officers, public in potential danger

While the image of a person with their hands cuffed behind their backs running across Leonard Street with officers in hot pursuit may be seen as a humorous event, the lack of up-to-date facility could place officers, the public, and the prisoner in a potentially dangerous position. 

Assistant Chief James MacIsaac said the police department’s needs are similar to those of the Belmont Fire Department that after decades of effort were successful in building two new fire houses ten years ago, but with one important caveat.

“They were not taking civilians into their buildings. They absolutely need the buildings, but we are totally different; we are storing evidence, we have firearms, and we store drugs. We are responsible for the safety of people we bring here and the current building puts all that in jeopardy,” said MacIsaac. 

McLaughlin said the time for town officials and residents to begin serious discussions on the future of a new station with the release of an updated feasibility study issued in February 2016 by Donham & Sweeney Architects. 

Read the feasibility report here.

In a nutshell, the study found that at 14,800 square feet, the current headquarters has become woefully inadequate for the space requirements of a modern police department. The feasibility study calls for more than double the square footage, ideally 30,000 square feet to be a viable building a quarter century in the future.

The report analyzed placing the new headquarters on the incinerator site at a cost of $18.4 million.

If the town moves forward on building the department’s future home, Belmont would join others in updating its police station. This January, Weston opened its 21,000 square feet facility including the shooting range, at a little over $12 million, Malden will enter it’s new 24,000 square foot facility in the fall and Gardner’s new $14 million police station is about 31,000 square feet, replacing the former station with 18,000 square feet.

Many of the new facilities are replacing buildings about 40 years old, half the age of Belmont’s current police headquarters. 

“If the town says the high school is aniquated and that was built in 1971, what are you telling us by not addessing our building that’s twice as old and in much worse shape?” said McLaughlin. 

McLaughlin acknowledges that a new Police Headquarters will be competing with other capital needs such as a DPW facility, a library and other big-ticket items. In past discussions with town officials, a portion of the cost would come from the sale of the existing Concord Avenue police station and the adjacent former Belmont Municipal Light Department for commercial development. And McLaughlin said he would be eminable to share the incinerator site with a new DPW headquarters.

“I’m not saying we’re any more important than anybody else. The unfortunate part is the town hasn’t kept pace with what their projects should have been,” he said. 

Special Town Meeting Rejects Interior Cell Tower Special Permit Demand

By 1 Comment

Photo: The view from the front row.

A citizens petition that would have required an applicant seeking to install telecommunications equipment for interior spaces to obtain a Special Permit was handily defeated by Town Meeting Members at the Wednesday, June 7, Special Town Meeting.

The article, brought by neighbors of the Plymouth Congregational Church on Pleasant Street in an attempt to place a new roadblock to Verizon’s proposal to put six antennae in the church’s steeple, went down to crushing defeat, 164-89, not coming anywhere near the needed two-thirds approval margin to change the bylaw.

After the vote, a church representative said the installation of the cell equipment will now quickly move forward. 

“I would anticipate, yes, it will be moving forward,” said Plymouth’s Chet Messer, who attended the Town Meeting vote.

“We indicated at the Planning Board hearing (in May) on this matter that we would have accepted whatever the town [meetings] decision was, and they have spoken,” said Messer.

For one of the leaders of the petition, the plans of those opposing the proposal are wide open. 

“I think were disappointed that the scope of the discussion was so limited,” said Glenn Herosian, referring to Town Moderator Michael Widmer’s insistence the discussion steer clear of the issue of health and safety allegedly from cell towers. He pointed to federal legislation that prevents municipal or state governments from refusing to grant permits on that subject. 

With the defeat of the citizens petition, the opponents have run out of governmental processes to question as Verizon won design and site review approval by the Planning Board, and the Historic District Commission signed off on the plan. 

Herosian told the Belmontonian the next step for the opponents would be determined soon.

“We obviously are going to consider what our options are; we do have options,” he said.

Asked it, one venue was through the courts; Herosian was hesitant to commit to a legal challenge. 

“We have counsel. But we certainly don’t want to do anything to add anymore disharmony to the neighborhood,” he said.

“We are disappointed that so many of the citizens of Belmont didn’t realize what an advantage they would have if they were able to employ experts at the expense of applicants or if they were able to have a meaningful discussion about the correct usages … of interior cell phone tower type installations,” said Herosian.

Presented by Precinct 4’s Judith Sarno, the article would have allowed nearby residents and businesses “to have their voice heard and have meaningful discussions during a special public hearing.”

“The Special Permit process takes a more transparent comprehensive and considered approach … then the limited design and site plan review.” Sarno noted Belmont’s bylaw regulating cell towers had not been updated in the past two decades, “this article goes a long way in catching up to those of our neighbors” Lexington, Arlington and Watertown have each taken steps to require applicants to submit to the Special Permit process.

The new requirement would also review auxiliary impacts from the antenna including the use of generators and when testing and servicing the equipment would occur. It would also ask the applicant to attempt first to place the material on municipal buildings and properties.

“By requiring a Special Permit, we ensure that these installations will require a public process which neighboring residents are given an opportunity to provide meaningful input into the decision-making whether they are in favor … or opposed to it,” said Sarno. 

If Sarno or the petitioners were hoping for a groundswell of support that proponents of the successful Special Town Meeting article to corral the construction of “mega-homes” instead found a growing number of Town Meeting members waiting in line to speak against the measure.

Bob McLaughlin, Precinct 2, said he was troubled with what he said is a “built in preference” to place the telecommunication equipment on a town building.

“As a Town Meeting member, I’m here to represent citizens, people who own property, and people who have the income from a Verizon (tower) … and we should not be competing with our constituents” especially since the town has the power to make law that “tilts the competition in favor of Belmont,” he said.

As for transparency in the review process, McLaughlin stated he “doesn’t care what goes on in your attic or your building, and you shouldn’t care what goes on in my attic,” to the applause of the meeting.

He added that a Special Permit should only be used when there is a countervailing public good that outweighs it, ” but I don’t see it.”

“There is one good reason for a Special Permit process, and that’s because it’s great for lawyers,” said McLaughlin, a long-time attorney.

Those members for the article approved of adding more opinions and transparency from telecommunication firms in the process. Steven Pinkerton. Precinct 7, who “had no dog in this fight,” said the added dialogue among neighbors before the Zoning Board Appeals “and not on the street” would result in the installation of much-needed cell coverage “just more carefully designed.” 

Helen Golding, Precinct 1, believed the article was a “Trojan Horse” where issues of how the equipment would be used and maintained were “hiding” the opponents health concerns that is prohibited by federal law.

“This is just subterfuge. I feel as if the applicants have not been transparent,” said Golding.

Melissa Irion, Precinct 8, who complained that “I can’t get a decent cell phone call” on Dean Street, said the article was just another “unfair measure against business and development in town. Better service makes us a more desirable town.”

Ellen Schreiber, Precinct 8, said the introduction of the Special Permit process will not be “simple or quick” as advertised by proponents, especially if there is considerable opposition to the tower.

Schreiber added that spotty cell reception in Belmont Center and the Winn Brook neighborhood was a public safety issue. She pointed to data that found that two of every five calls to Belmont 911 comes from a cell phone, a trend that is only growing.

“If you can’t call 911 and 41 percent who call 911 uses a cell phone … that is a public safety issue,” she said.

There were only two attempts to tread on possible health worries, each time to the consternation of the assembled members. Selectmen Vice Chair Sami Baghdady, who along with Jim Williams voted for “favorable action” on the article, explained his vote by saying that regardless of what the scientific or medical studies may say, “wireless telecommunication facilities or cellular antennas do incite public concern and panic” if placed in a residential neighborhood.

“Imagine having a cellular antenna in close proximity to where your children sleep or where your children play,” said Baghdady before the meeting exploded in jeering and catcalls as Widmer said the comments were “beyond the scope.” Baghdady concluded that he sought “meaningful dialogue” to “mediate concerns” that residents do not have within the design and site review process. 

Dr. Martin Steffen of School Street and Boson Univeristy Medical Center – who was providing the petitioners with scientific insight and expertise – called an earlier assertion that cell towers produced 50 watts of energy (compared to a light bulb) “a real red herring” as it was not from radiofrequency radiation. He then submitted that such radiation “creates health effects” an assertion left unexplained as Widmer ruled that line of inquiry “out of order.” 

When the vote was flashed on the screen, the margin surprised members since the petition had signees from each of Belmont’s eight precincts. 

After the meeting, Herosian told the Belmontonian that it appeared to him that there were “more personal issues [expressed by Town Meeting Members] verses really clear efforts to improve the way the town manages its utilities and manages its neighborhoods.”

Herosain said the crux of the issue is not the short term use of a cell phone to make a call; it’s the long-term, 24/7 exposures are not part of the current FCC criteria.”