State Readies Sale Of Incinerator Site to Town; Special Town Meeting To Accept Land

By 2 Comments

Photo: The entry to the former incinerator site. 

It’s been nearly two years in the works but this week, the state is preparing to hand over a former trash incinerator closed for the past five decades back to the town.

The Belmont Board of Selectmen will vote on a date, likely in June, to hold a Special Town Meeting where members will vote whether to accept or reject the conveyance from the state to the town of the nearly 16-acre parcel sitting adjacent upper Concord Avenue and Rock Meadow Conservation about 1,500 feet from the Lexington town line.

“We have received communication that this conveyance is in the process of being executed by [the state] depending on what we have to execute,” said David Kale, Belmont’s town administrator. 

IMG_3471 IMG_3473

Once accepted, the town is required by the state to remediate the site which includes removing or “capping” the contaminated soil polluted by the ash produced by the burned garbage. As part of the agreement, the state, through the Department of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance which is responsible for the disposition of state-owned property, will subtract the amount the town spends on remediation from the assessed value of the property.

Belmont in 2006 created a special stabilization account to fund the future “clean-up” of the site. There is currently $4.2 million in the account, according to Kale. 

“The total cost will also depend on post-closure uses,” he said.

The sale has been years in the making. In 2012, as it was considering using the site for athletic fields or other uses, the town discovered ownership of the site had reverted to the state once the incinerator was formally shut down in the early 1980s.

In January 2014, former Gov. Deval Patrick signed legislation sponsored by State Rep. Dave Rogers  authorizing the sale of the state-owned land to the town at a “fair market value.” An important provision of the transfer is the land is limited to recreational or municipal use; it can not be sold or leased for commercial or business operations.

Built in 1959, the incinerator operated until 1975, then becoming the town’s transfer station for two decades. It is currently used by the Belmont DPW for equipment storage, leaf composting and debris.

In November 2014, the selectmen held a meeting with  Town Meeting members and the public on possible uses for the former incinerator which included a solar “farm,” sports fields, open space and a future home for Police headquarters or the DPW.

Belmont Town Meeting, First Night, Session One

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Mike Widmer, Town Moderator

7 p.m.: Welcome to the first night of Belmont’s annual Town Meeting. We are waiting for Town Moderator Mike Widmer to open the town’s legislative body.

We are at Belmont High School’s Auditorium. The 290 members will spend Monday discussing and voting on non-budgetary articles on the warrant. All budget and financial reports will be discussed and voted on in the June session.

Tonight, Monday, Town Meeting will tackle Articles 1-7 in the Town Meeting Warrant. They include:

  • Article 1: Reports (there will be no reports this evening.)
  • Article 2: Authorize, the Board of Selectmen, to represent the town’s legal interests.
  • Article 3: Authorize the town to abandon an existing utility easement along Trapelo Road and Common Street.
  • Article 4: Extend the Demolition Delay Bylaw by one year to allow for the completion of the Historic District Commission Town-wide survey of historic properties.
  • Article 5: Remove the “sunset” provision from the Residential Property Snow Removal Bylaw.
  • Article 6: Limiting the size and mass of dwellings in the Single Residence C Zoning District. This article could be tabled.
  • Article 7: Individual votes on the eight projects put forward by the Community Preservation Committee.

7:22 p.m.: We are underway with the Articles. This is abandoning the utility easement in Cushing Square. Pretty straight forward. Glenn Clancy of the Office of Community Development gives his usual folksy explanation; this easement is to allow Cushing Village to move forward. No discussion? Darn, two questions. Sue Bass, Pct. 1 asks where the Cushing Village development now stands. Town Administrator David Kale says Toll Brothers, the large national developer, have until August to make a purchase and sale of the property. They are doing its due diligence to execute the sale. Don Mercier, Pct. 8, asks if the easement has economic value and why to give it away without getting paid for it. Clancy said town didn’t actually own it to sell it. The vote is unanimous yes.

7:36 p.m.: Now up is to extend the Demolition Delay Bylaw by one year. Selectmen, Warrant and Joe Cornish of the Historic District Commission said the extension would give sufficient time to complete updated town survey of historic properties and work with stakeholders in the community to draft a new bylaw by Spring 2017 Town Meeting. He said that only two properties were subject to the demolition process.

Funny moment: Just as questions are underway, the High School jazz band began to practice. “We’ll have a little interlude,” said Widmer,

No real questions, it passes 227-13.

7:40 p.m.: Now up is extending the snow removal bylaw. It’s been around for three years and let’s make it permanent. Joe White, Pct. 4, said some people have asked if a resident breaks a finger or have a heart attack while shoveling, who is liable? There is no shift of liability on civil claims if the bylaw was or was not in effect. If the sidewalk was defective, then you might have a claim, but not if the bylaw is in force. And yes, the bylaw also holds the town to shovel public walks. Mark Paolillo, Selectman chair, tells Don Mercier, Pct. 8, that the bylaw was created to change behavior, and it’s been successful. The vote is underway the bylaw is now permanent by a 230-9 margin.

7:53 p.m.: Article 6, which will limit the height and mass of single family homes in many sections of town, has been tabled due to technical changes that still need to be made. It will be brought up at the June meeting. It passes 226-8. 

7:55 p.m.: The Community Preservation Committee projects are up. Margaret Baily, CPC chair, gives an overview of what the CPA does. 

Jim Stanton, Pct. 3, made a comment saying that he knows of no grant program that approves 85 percent of applications. The town would be better served if twice as many applications were presented to the CPC and there would be a competition of ideas rather than just approve what is presented.  

For this coming fiscal year, the six projects seeking Town Meeting approval are:

  1. Construction of Intergenerational Walking Path at Clay Pit Pond: $228,350
  2. Preserving Belmont’s Original Vital Records: $80,000
  3. Digitizing Belmont’s Town Meeting Records: $85,000
  4. Town Hall Exterior Railings Improvements: $75,000
  5. PQ Park Playground Project: $25,000
  6. Winn Brook Tennis Courts: $325,000

TOTAL: $818,350

Mary Trudeau gives an overview of the Clay Pit walking path. The path will have a 6-8 foot wide compacted stone pathway, have a restored entrance to the Veteran’s Memorial Area from Concord Avenue to the flag pole and have brick pavers at points with the water’s edge. Kevin Cunningham, Pct. 4, asks what official “hoops” would this project need to pass to get an OK. Trudeau said the construction would need to get state approval because it is within wetlands protected the land. But she does not see it as a problem. Stanton, Pct. 3, said since the plans for the community path were developed, the renovation of the High School has been approved, and there could be a community bike/walk path included in the area. More comment than a question. Janet Kruse, Pct. 3, ask if the path will be wheelchair user accessible. It will be with ramps at all entry points. The Vote: Unanimously adopted.

Up now is PQ Park. It will be focusing on the one-acre playground area. A landscape architect would be hired to include a preliminary design, construction documents and position the group asking for the money to move to Phase 2, which will be actual construction. Joe White, Pct. 4, wants to know if the area will be fenced off from dogs. He then went off to doggie daycare. Jack Weis, Pct. 1, asked if approval of this article will require the town to pay for work proposed if the next phase is not done. Selectman Sami Baghdady said any Request for Proposal will go through the Selectmen’s office, and they would make sure the town isn’t liable for such non-work. The vote and the motion was adopted with a few nos. 

Winn Brook tennis courts is being debated. Lots of questions on the hole in the fence. Maryann Scali, tennis lover, Pct. 2, said since courts are disappearing, the town has to protect what’s left because tennis is a sport that people who of her age can still play. Yes with a scattering of nos.

Town Clerk Ellen Cushman said she hoped that she wouldn’t take that much time presenting her request in preserving Belmont’s original vital records and digitizing the town meeting records. Only one question, both articles passing unanimously. 

Gerry Boyle, Facilities Director, presents the town’s request to replace and refurbish the ornamental railings on the Concord Avenue side of Town Hall. Ed Kazanjian, Pct. 6, asks why weren’t this type of improvement done during the Town Hall renovation about 15 years ago. Is this the end of this sort of work? Boyle said he could not say if this was the final project at Town Hall “because all buildings are living and breathing things” which grow old and need repairs. Passes with a few nos.

Give And Take On Pleasant Church Cell Antennae Debate

By 1 Comment

[Editor’s note: With the successful citizen’s petition, a Special Town Meeting – the date sometime in June to be determined by the Board of Selectmen on Wednesday, May 4 – will be convened to debate changing the zoning bylaw to require the installation of interior wireless telecommunication antennae to obtain a special permit rather than the current zoning distinction of an “as of right.” This change would specifically place a greater burden on the attempt by Verizon to place a cell antennae inside the steeple of the Plymouth Congregational Church on Pleasant Street. Currently, a significant number of neighbors to the church are protesting the partnership and the communications device. Belmont are two opinions on the matter, both from Pleasant Street.]

Some comments were shortened.

John Beaty

I write to my neighbors, the Plymouth Congregational Church, and the Belmont community after watching and reading our neighborhood protest for almost six months. It is important to me to write a note that all three groups can read. 

With a little bit discussion with experts and reading, it is easy to come to the conclusion that cell towers provide less exposure to microwaves than cell phones, about 5 to 10 times less, and the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society think there is very little evidence to support the idea that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. 

But these facts are not relevant, my neighbors are afraid, and do not want any additional microwave exposure. In opposition to my neighbor’s fear and concern are the needs of Plymouth Congregational Church. The Church needs the income from the Verizon cell tower to continue its existence and mission. Neither group has communicated with the other effectively.

It appears to me that the tone of protest has become increasingly acrimonious without cause. The fear, acrimony, and misunderstanding can be reduced by meeting and talking. The time to sit on the sidelines has passed. The Pleasant Street neighborhood and the Plymouth Congregational Church need to put their fears aside, talk with one another and work toward a resolution of the respective issues.

The following note will address four issues in more detail. I am going to start with my understanding of the physics and the health issues, “The Science;” then move on to a discussion of “My Neighbors Are Angry and Afraid;” followed by “The Church Is Stuck;” and lastly present “My Position.” 

The Science

My conclusion from the science is that we have little to fear from having a cell phone transmitter in the Church steeple. More importantly, the American Cancer Society also thinks so. There is very little evidence to support the idea that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. 

Although the science and rational thinking are important, the facts on the ground are more often governed by feelings and politics, so let’s talk about the Pleasant Street neighborhood and the Plymouth Congregation Church parish.

My Neighbors Are Angry and Afraid

Again, from my point of view, my friends and neighbors are genuinely frightened of the consequences of the exposure to cell tower radiation. The science and rational approach be dammed, this is an unwanted excess exposure and they are afraid of the consequences. The duration and vigor of the neighborhood protest is a testament to the anger and fear.

The protest has been going on for about six months that I know about, but I was told that it started almost a year ago. The neighbors have communicated in many ways. The Pleasant Street residents have:

  1. Written articles that were printed in the Belmont newspaper about the Church and its intent to host a Verizon cell tower in its steeple.
  2. Written about the Church parish and its clergy and management.
  3. Campaigned within the extended Pleasant Street community to consolidate a common position against the Verizon cell tower.
  4. Posted a Facebook page about the cell tower, church, and potential effects.
  5. Printed and posted a variety of signs, some printed, some individual handiwork.
  6. Written and distributed flyers.

It has been a vigorous, vociferous, extended, and sometimes unkind campaign. Yet to my knowledge there has been no direct contact between the Pleasant Street neighbors and the Plymouth Congregational Church (parishioners, managers, or clergy). Neither have I heard, read, or seen the voice of the church community as an advocate for the Verizon cell tower, but they are continuing to move forward with their effort to obtain cell tower approval.

The Church is Stuck

The other half of the equation is the neighborhood Plymouth Congregational Church parish. I do not know, but I think that the parish is in financial decline. It must use its physical plant to keep itself financially viable. Tithing and additional donations from the parishioners is insufficient to keep it in good financial order. So, it rents space for daycare, education, and social events that apparently is not enough. I was told by a parishioner that the parish was approached by Verizon with a cell tower contract offer that would provide an additional revenue stream for the length of the contract. This extra-parochial revenue may or may not be enough to keep the Church in good order, but it would help. I speculate that the contract with Verizon is probably between $2,000 and $3,000 a month for 12 months for 15 years which amounts to more than $360,000. The money from the contract would be available for any parish expense and would probably solve their cash flow issues.

The Church is stuck. It lives in a community that it wants to serve. It has insufficient resources to take care of the Church plant and the activities of the parish. It is trying to do good work; trying to survive: serve it parish, neighborhood and the Belmont community. It is hunkered down, but continuing to move forward toward its objective.

My Position

My neighbors are important to me. As I get older, it is increasingly important to be surrounded by a community of friends and well-meaning neighbors. My spouse and I are acquainted with everyone in the neighborhood and know many of them well enough to call them friends. But we are not afraid of cell phones or cell towers and find ourselves misaligned with the protest and much of the communication.

To add to our misalignment, we know some of the parishioners and have been neighbors with the Plymouth Congregational Church for 30 years. We know about some of the good works the parish has done over those years and view the church as a good neighbor.

The time has come to state my position. I believe in science and public policy based on scientific facts and rational thinking. I believe in direct communication. I believe in civil (sometimes you have to shout to be heard) and respectful discourse. To be more direct: I think the Church and the Pleasant Street neighborhood should talk to one another. The two groups need to figure out a pathway forward with the cell tower.

Glenn Herosian

We all appreciate your desire to promote a resolution of the dispute in our neighborhood. However, your timely commentary reads more like a well-coached spin from a political consultant hired by the church rather than an appeal from a concerned neighbor. Why would you write this sincere appeal to the local press? 

Your neighbors are understandably fearful of the ill-defined and involuntary Radiofrequency (RF) radiation about to be thrust into our kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms. But we are far from ignorant about Verizon’s plans for its steeple. Rather, we are outraged by the church’s insensitivity to its neighbors and use of its non-profit status to transform a place of worship into a cell phone tower ”business.” Between congregation donations, probable Community Preservation Act funding, and current monthly rents from numerous tenants, the church’s financial needs could be satisfied without creating controversy and discord in its own neighborhood. 

Unfortunately, we continue to see mischief from Verizon as it submits misleading applications and times its actions to avoid public discussion. 

Your treatise on “the Science” mentions the appropriate RF formulas but also echoes the inaccurate mantra of the church that our occasional use of cell phones is more harmful than the continuous exposure from high powered antennas. Your example underestimates the impact of these antennas as well as the actual duration and cumulative effect on those 23 families within the red zone. The one key difference between a cell phone and base station emissions is that we can all turn off our cell phones to limit our exposure. We do not have that option to control the output of a continuously-radiating cluster of antennas hidden less than 100 feet from our childrens’ bedrooms. 

Despite your assurances, parents of children in the neighborhood take a precautionary approach to the radiation emitting from the cell phone antennas much as they would with any other danger to their children. Not one of the church’s congregation lives within the high exposure range of the Plymouth Church’s antennas. 

On January 15, eight of us stood outside the church and politely shared information about the availability of CPA funds and our willingness to work with the church. I do not believe that the church is “stuck,” nor would I generalize without facts about its financial condition. The church has some prominent members who could have guided their congregation toward CPA funding to preserve its building, leaving its other income to support its ministry. Unfortunately, church leaders have demonstrated little interest in CPA funds or restoring harmony in the neighborhood. 

Let’s remember to consider the financial impact on the town. With Belmont financially “stuck’ by the long term funding for a new high school and library, putting the cell tower on town property and receiving Verizon’s monthly cell tower fee would help a far greater number of Belmont citizens than just those attending the church. Cell phone base stations also devalue neighboring property. The combined property devaluation and loss in real estate tax revenue could total millions and hurt the town even more. 

Our group’s position is that the church should continue doing its “good work” and be a place of worship rather than becoming a cell phone business that disregards the legitimate concerns of the families living around it. We understand the “science” of our cell phones, but cannot blindly trust incomplete scientific research distorted by powerful cell phone lobbies. The win-win solution is for the Church to obtain CPA funds and Verizon to locate the antennas in a less-dense residential area to help restore harmony to our neighborhood.

Belmont’s Annual Town Meeting Convenes Tonight at 7 PM

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Town Meeting.
Legislative democracy is back in session tonight as Belmont’s Annual Town Meeting convenes tonight, Monday, May 2 at 7 p.m. in the Belmont High School Auditorium.
The 290 members will spend Monday and Wednesday, May 4, voting on non-budgetary articles on the warrant. All budget and financial articles will be discussed and voted on in the June session.
Tonight, Monday, Town Meeting will tackle Articles 1-7 in the Town Meeting Warrant. They include:
  • Article 1: Reports (there will be no reports this evening.)
  • Article 2: Authorize the Board of Selectmen to represent the town’s legal interests.
  • Article 3: Authorize the town to abandon an existing utility easement along Trapelo Road and Common Street.
  • Article 4: Extend the Demolition Delay Bylaw by one year to allow for the completion of the Historic District Commmision Town-wide survey of historic properties.
  • Article 5: Remove the “sunset” provision from the Residential Property Snow Removal Bylaw.
  • Article 6: Limiting the size and mass of dwellings in the Single Residence C Zoning District. There is discussion that this article could be tabled.
  • Article 7: Individual votes on the eight projects put forward by the Community Preservation Committee. More information on the projects can be found here.

On Wednesday, May 4, the annual meeting will close temporarily to allow for a Special Town Meeting to convene. The Special Town Meeting will have three articles: 

  1. A funding authorization to finance a new $144 million Minuteman Regional Vocational School.
  2. Appropriate $1.75 million, the proceeds from the sale of town owned land off Woodfall Road, to fund initial expenses of the Belmont High School Building Committee.
  3. Transfer $1.3 million from free cash to fund the purchase of six modular classrooms to be used at the Chenery Middle School. 
Jack Weis, Belmont’s Representative to the Minuteman School Committee, has provided a preview of the slides he intends to present under Article 3 of the Special Town Meeting, and is asking Town Meeting Members to look through the new presentation in advance of Wednesday’s meeting in hope of covering the entire presentation in an efficient manner. To permit everyone to receive and view these slides without being constrained by computer power, please follow this link to the slides that are on the Town Clerk’s Town Meeting Information page of the website: 
 

Town’s Financial ‘Watchdog’ Follows Selectmen Recommending ‘No’ On Minuteman

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The interior of the new Minuteman Tech High School.

In a vote that was not unexpected, the town’s Warrant Committee voted Wednesday, April 27, to recommend next week’s Town Meeting rejects a $144 million funding plan for a new building to house the Minuteman Career and Technical High School.

The 8 to 6 vote came two days after the Belmont Board of Selectmen voted Monday, April 25, unanimously to recommend “unfavorable action” on the financing program that would have the 10 communities that now represent a newly reconstituted Minuteman school district – which Belmont Town Meeting Members overwhelmingly approved in February at a Special Town Meeting – picking up about $100 million in expenses as the state will reimburse $45 million in costs. 

Under the financing plan, each of the ten district communities Town Meetings must approve the building project. So far, most of the smaller towns such as Acton, Stowe and Boxborough have voted in favor of the plan. In an important decision just days before the two Belmont votes, Arlington’s financial committee which has the same role as Belmont’s Warrant Committee, recommended a “yes” vote to Arlington’s Town Meeting which convenes in mid-May.

As with the selectmen’s vote the previous night, a majority of the committee expressed that the building, designed to house 630 students, is too large for the ten member communities in the Minuteman School District who send about 340 high schoolers to the Lexington campus.

Belmont currently sends 26 students to the school, which is about the average number over the past decade. 

In addition, those opposing the plan contend there is no assurance other than recent favorable comments from officials from Everett and Watertown – two communities outside the district that pays a higher tuition per pupil to send them to Minuteman – that any of the out-of-district cities and towns that send students to Minuteman are willing to join the district and take on a sizable chunk of the capital expense of a new school, or are prepared to back a $8,400 per student surcharge the district is seeking to help defer the cost of the building. 

Finally, even if others would step up to the plate to subsidize the cost, Belmont would be saddled with an annual payment over 20 years of between $372,000 and $500,000 of its share of the construction costs. 

“We simply don’t have the money. It would require us to cut [town and school] programs to find the funds,” said Paolillo, saying the town would need to request a debt exclusion to pay for the building around the same time the town will approach residents seeking a possible $100 million debt exclusion for the renovation and new construction at Belmont High School.  

“We really have no other options,” said Paolillo, who believes a no vote – which will scuttle the plan – will require the Minuteman district to come up with a Plan B, which the district members can take a new look at the issues facing the school. 

Pleading the case for a new school building, Minuteman Superintendent Ed Bouquillon reiterated the hope that a new school building, sized to allow for the teaching a wide range of trades and areas of engineering studies in addition to greater interest nationwide among high school aged student in learning technical subjects.

Bouquillon also noted that a school built for 435 student – the smallest that the state will reimburse – would cost $120 million. While admitting that the $24 million difference “is significant,” it should be seen as an “incremental cost” when you understand the upside of having a school with greater potential of serving a wider population with a significant number of programs.

Supporters on the committee, including newly installed chair Roy Epstein, said despite the cost, “it was better off going forward than stopping and starting over” without the assurance that the new plan would be better for Belmont and its students.

But the majority decided a “rethink on this whole district” is needed, said committee member Bob McLaughlin.

Thank You, Override: School Budget To End Fiscal Year In Balance

By Leave a Comment

Photo: A school budget in the black? 

Last year this month, the Belmont School District and School Committee were scrambling to someway fill a $536,000 deficit by the end of fiscal year 2015 which loomed in two months.

In the end, the district with a cup in hand to ask for $285,000 from the Warrant Committee and drained the Special Ed Stabilization Fund of its $250,000.

As fiscal year 2016 is coming close to closing, the deficit facing the district is far more modest. In fact, if everything breaks its way, the district could arrive on June 30 living in the black.

That’s the hope coming from Belmont Public School Superintendent John Phelan and Tony DiCologero, the district’s finance and business and operations director, who presented a forecast of the total general fund. According to DiCologero, an analysis of the revenue and expense trends, the anticipated shortfall on June 30, the final day of the fiscal year, will be approximate $23,000.

Phelan said the improved fiscal condition of the schools was directly related to the passage in April 2015 of the $4.5 million Proposition 2 1/2 override allowing the district to manage the continuing high number of students entering the system which had created a financial

“We have to thank the taxpayers for passing the override to allow us to navigate the increase in enrollment that continues,” said Phelan. 

The projected loss is lower from the last time the school district calculated the deficit in December when the forecasted number was $58,000. Much of the reduction has to do with district-wide positive trends district including in salaries where savings have been seen from staff turnover where the new hires are coming in a much lower pay rate.

The district will be seeking, even more, savings when it places a halt on purchase invoices early next month. 

“If this works as we hope, we could end the year in the black,” said Phelan. 

Belmont Firefighters Agree To Drug/Alcohol Testing In New Contract

By 2 Comments

Photo: Belmont Fire in action.

Drug and alcohol testing policy is now part of firefighters job after the Belmont Board of Selectmen approved a three-year contract with the 54 members of the International Association of Firefighter Local 1637 at its Monday, April 25 meeting. 

“The firefighters really stepped up to the plate with the town” reaching an agreement after two years of negotiations, said Belmont Fire Department Chief David Frizzell. 

While the mandatory testing is new to the department, “it’s becoming the norm among the majority of top tier fire departments,” said Assistant Fire Chief Angus Davison.

The contract, which is retroactive to July 1, 2014, and runs through June 31, 2017, provides for an annual salary cost and living adjustment of two percent and while 13 personnel will see their yearly Advanced Life Savings stipend bumped up from $2,000 to $2,750. 

New employees will pay more for their health insurance contributions, from 20 to 25 percent, while seeing a 25 cent increase per hour in compensation. There are also changes in benefits for personnel who obtain associate’s and bachelor’s degrees in fire science. 

Citizen Petition Triggers Special Town Meeting Targeting Wireless Antennae at Plymouth Church

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Plymouth Congregational Church.

A group of residents, many who have led the effort to halt the installation of cellular antennae inside the steeple of Plymouth Congregational Church on Pleasant Street, have successfully filed a citizen’s petition that now requires the town to hold a Special Town Meeting in June aimed at placing a steep roadblock to the plans by the church and its telecommunication giant partner.

As the petitioners are pushing to add more stringent requirements on this and other future wireless projects, church leaders told the Belmontonian they are moving forward with a revised plan they anticipate will pass muster before a small governmental commission that is hearing the proposal.

The Special Town Meeting, which Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman said will likely take place on June 8 during the budget session of the annual Town Meeting, will ask Members to change the town’s bylaw on the installation of internal wireless telecommunications facilities.

The language of the petition – signed by 242 residents – seeks to modify the town’s current zoning bylaws in which smaller cell installations are currently “allowed by right” – in which no town oversight is needed to obtain a building permit – to requiring property owners to get a “special permit” before commencing work, “giving interested Belmont residents an opportunity to provide input to the deliberations of the Zoning Board of Appeal.”

Precinct 4’s Judith Sarno – who with Karen Herosian, Danny Morris and Ron Creamer sponsored the petition – said the petition is a “modest amendment to bring the zoning for wireless telecommunications facilities into the 21st century and offer residents a voice,” and not an attempt to disallow these operations from operating in Belmont.

“[We] are simply asking Town Meeting to allow for more transparency and some notice to concerned neighbors, by simply changing [the bylaw] to a Special Permit,” said Sarno.

Under the special permit requirement, a property owner would be required to present its plan before the Zoning Board of Appeals to demonstrate that a cell tower would not place a burden on the neighboring community. The new requirement would also require notification of neighbors and allow for comments from residents before the ZBA.

In recent rulings, the ZBA has demonstrated a propensity to rule against commercial proposals, from some small day care operations to larger enterprises including a hotel, a Dunkin Donuts franchise and placing stringent restrictions on individual homeowners who put their properties on the popular Airbnb room sharing website.

There are nine existing wireless cell facilities in Belmont; in Belmont Center, a large tower adjacent to the new Highland Cemetery on Concord Avenue and on 125 Trapelo Rd. in Cushing Square, which handles four of the biggest cell providers: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.

The suggested change to the zoning bylaws after the church finalized an agreement with the telecommunication giant Verizon, which is about to present a revised plan to the Historic District Commission, which must OK any exterior structural changes to the steeple before the major construction can take place.

“Verizon will be presenting a revised design plan to remove the air-conditioning compressors and to retain the wooden louvers, thus eliminating the noise concerns of neighbors and preserving the current appearance of the steeple, respectively,” said 

Verizon has begun preliminary work in the area in January after the Planning Board approved the design and site plan review to place the antenna inside the steeple.

“As of now the work is related solely to Verizon and does not require a building permit,” Glenn Clancy, director of the Office of Community Development, told the Belmontonian in February.

“The Verizon work is allowed as it would be for any private property owner” with the owner taking the “risk onto themselves” if the permit is ultimately not issued, said Clancy.

From the church’s view, a majority of town residents will benefit from better cell reception.

“Town officials and Town Meeting members should take the actions that are appropriate to providing better-quality and reliable cell service to improve the ability of all its residents, visitors and businesses, alike, to conduct business, education and social interactions,” said Chet Messer, chair of the Board of Trustees of Plymouth Church.

Six Community Preservation Projects Heading to Town Meeting for OK

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Clay Pit Pond and the location of the intergenerational path.

Projects encompassing a path for all ages, preserving the town’s history and sprucing up community play areas will seek Town Meeting approval as the Community Preservation Committee presents its list of recommended projects to the town’s legislative body next month.

Now in its fourth year, the Committee receives requests for grants that are funded by a 1.5 percent surcharge on property taxes (about $156 for an average household) which was approved by Belmont voters in November 2010. On average, Belmont generates approximately $1.2 million annually to fund CPC projects.

Funding is restricted for use in four categories: community housing, historic resources, open space and recreation. The committee is responsible for reviewing all submitted applications and send to Town Meeting its recommendations for funding.

For this coming fiscal year, the six projects seeking Town Meeting approval are:

  1. Construction of Intergenerational Walking Path at Clay Pit Pond: $228,350 
  2. Preserving Belmont’s Original Vital Records: $80,000 
  3. Digitizing Belmont’s Town Meeting Records: $85,000 
  4. Town Hall Exterior Railings Improvements: $75,000 
  5. PQ Park Playground Project: $25,000 
  6. Winn Brook Tennis Courts: $325,000 

TOTAL: $818,350

After discussions with Town Officials on Tuesday, April 18, the CPC recommendations vote will place on the first night of Town Meeting, Monday, May 2 at Belmont High School.

For more detailed information on each project, head to the Community Preservation Committee’s web page on the town’s website.

School Committee: New Members Forecast Roles on Board

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Murat Bicer being sworn in by Town Clerk Ellen Cushman.
 
The April 5 Town Election resulted in the selection of two new members of Belmont School Committee, Murat Bicer and Andrea Prestwich, who won three-year seats on the body that will decide the direction of the school district facing increasing enrollment pressure, the construction of a new high school, keeping the schools at a top level academically and facing future financial pressures.
 
The Belmontonian asked the pair questions on what they learned during their campaigns and the their future on the board.
 
[Some answers were shortened for length]
 
Belmontonian: What did you learn about Belmont and the residents perception of the schools during your campaign that may not have been on your radar?
 
Bicer: I was delighted by how engaged the residents were, even people who don’t currently have students in the system. About 25 people attended my campaign event; several sent me questions through my website, and one even sent me a letter in the mail. All totaled, I fielded dozens of thoughtful, difficult, and important questions.  As a first-time candidate for office, I didn’t know what to expect for direct engagement, and I learned that Belmont is a very politically active community.
 
Prestwich: I heard a lot about kids being stressed at school.  I was expecting this somewhat from the parents of high school kids but not so much from middle school or even elementary school parents. The main concerns were a lack of down time during the day and homework.
 
Belmontonian: What was the overriding concern of Belmont parents relating to the schools? What was your answer to those issues?
 
Bicer: The overriding concern kept boiling down to the same: How are we going to afford it all?  As many of our largest challenges are budgetary, it’s not a surprise that buried in peoples’ specific questions about class sizes, the shape of the new high school, and access to electives was a concern for monetary resources. So in answering resource questions about the schools, I emphasized that I’ll look over the budget, question assumptions, and work my hardest to stretch our dollars as far as they’ll go while thoughtfully reviewing options for additional revenues.
IMG_2681

Andrea Prestwich.

 
Prestwich: Quality of the schools was the number one issue. People are worried about the impact of the enrollment, especially those with younger kids. I was also very pleased by the depth of support for starting school later. I share these concerns, and I will work very hard to maintain funding and transition to later start times.
 
Belmontonian: What subcommittee do you think you can contribute the most? Why?
 
Bicer: I hope to join the finance subcommittee. First, I’ve worked in finance for a decade and feel that this is a valuable experience that can add to the pool of talents already on the School Committee.  Second, Laurie Slap formerly chaired the finance subcommittee, and with her departure, I feel it’s important that the subcommittee is brought back up in number.
 
Prestwich: Probably the policy subcommittee, because I have the most experience in this area.
 
Belmontonian: What do you expect from yourself in the first six months on the “job”?
 
Bicer: In the first six months, I plan to review the budget in the context of enrollment challenges and come up to speed on discussions my colleagues have started about solutions. I’d also like to continue meeting and hearing from the community, and getting a sense of how to represent parents and non-parents in our decision-making processes.

Prestwich: A lot of learning! And I’d like to make significant progress to starting schools later.

IMG_2743 IMG_2747