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.”

Town Meeting Puts Kibosh On McMansions Passing Limits On Residential Homes

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Peg Callanan speaking before Town Meeting on Monday. Steve Pinkerton is behind Callahan.

Late in 2014, Sargent Road’s Peg Callanan and Stephen Pinkerton of Dalton Road decided something had to be done to put a halt the sudden explosion of oversized structures – dubbed McMansions – being built in their neighborhood of single-family homes adjacent to the Grove Street Playground.

Nearly 18 months since they formed the Belmont Citizens for Responsible Zoning (BCRZ) to bring attention to what they called “a threat to the character of our community,” Callanan and Pinkerton were present to see their concerns answered when Belmont Town Meeting on Monday, June 6, overwhelmingly approved major changes to the zoning bylaw that places permanent restrictions on the size of new construction or major renovations in seven of Belmont’s eight precincts.

“The vote shows that you can change what some said was too complicated to do,” said Callanan, after the 195-32 vote to give its blessing to Article 6 which sets limits to the height and space around new homes.

The vote on the article – which took 15 minutes – came after nearly three hours of debate on four amendments that would allow the construction of a second floor by right, the placement of HVAC units and design issues. Each was defeated handily with the exception of the final amendment on another HVAC-related issue voted down by a margin of two votes, 114-112. 

While the overall article had overwhelming support, many Town Meeting members were dreading the prospect of up to nine amendments which would take time to debate and vote. Advantageously, many of the pending amendments were withdrawn before the meeting, and when Charles Hamann, chair of the Bylaw Review Committee removed three more at the last minute, he received a kiss in gratitude from Planning Board Chair Liz Allison.

See how the new bylaw effects the size and mass of single-family homes going forward in the SR-C district.

Among the new rules are:

  • An applicant that demolishes a house to build a larger home, and on a different foot print, or increases the original gross floor area by more than 30 percent during a renovation will now require obtaining a Special Permit.
  • New homes will be limited in height to 30 feet from the midpoint of the roof line and 34 feet at its highest.
  • The front set back must be the average footage of the abutting houses.
What the new bylaw does is close “two critical loop-holes” in town zoning, said Pinkerton: the lack of a total height limit and the absence of a Special Permit requirement for significant work in residential neighborhoods. 

The new bylaw expands on a one-year moratorium approved at last year’s Town Meeting placing restrictions on the total height (at 32 feet) on any new or reconstructed single-family dwelling unit in a small section of Precinct 7 that saw a rapid increase in demolitions and the construction of mega-homes.

Since that vote, the BCRZ began working with the town’s Planning Board to develop Zoning By-Law amendments to “help preserve the neighborhood’s distinctive character” by mitigating the effects of oversized construction throughout the Single Residence C Zoning District, according to a committee letter to Town Meeting.

“We pledged last year that we would work collaboratively, and that started right away and it just never stopped,” Callahan told the Belmontonian after the meeting.

“We believe that Article 6 is the best solution … that will balance the interests of today’s homeowners for larger homes while respecting the rights of its existing owners,” Callanan told Town Meeting before the vote. 

Pinkerton told Town Meeting members who were thinking of opposing the article as it does not allow “as right” the construction of a second floor or it appears to grants more power to the Planning Board, “not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

“Come to the Planning Board and work with them and with us. This has been a remarkable collaborative effort from all kinds of people,” said Pinkerton. 

There was some opposition, on forcing design parameters being placed on homeowners and builders, and whether new residents would be heard by the Planning Board, yet those issues were brushed aside allow the article to pass comfortably.

Selectmen Backing Special Permit for Interior Cell Antennas

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Plymouth Congregational Church.

By a 2-0 vote with one abstention, the Belmont Board of Selectmen will recommend “favorable action” on a citizen’s petition seeking to require firms seeking to install interior cellular transmission antennas to obtain a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

A Special Town Meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 9, to vote on the article.

The vote, taken on Friday, June 3, will bolster the efforts of more than 200 residents along Pleasant Street, who have been fighting to stop the telecommunications giant Verizon from installing six antennas within the steeple of Plymouth Congregational Church, at 582 Pleasant St.

Selectmen Jim Williams and Sami Baghdady voted for a favorable review. Chair Mark Paolillo recused himself as he, as a member of the Plymouth congregation, had been involved in a minor way at the beginning of the negotiation between the church and Verizon. 

Judith Sarno, a Waverley Terrace resident who has been assisting the residents in crafting the petition and who presented the case before the board, said the article’s proponents are only seeking “just a little more opportunity for transparency, and that’s important for the residents.”

Under existing bylaw, an interior antenna is a “by right” installation, requiring only a design and site review from the Planning Board, which is not obliged to provide a public comment period – although, in practice, the Board does accept comments from residents – or the notification of neighbors.

A Special Permit process would require an open meeting where comments and testimony are provided to the ZBA, which can require more information on the effects of the equipment on the steeple and answers from the applicant on a broad range of criteria.

“That could include noise, servicing trucks, certainly its height,” said Baghdady.

One area the current opponents will be unable to question the application of the Special Permit process are health concerns emulating from the tower. For the past year, residents against the antenna have been presenting a broad range of data and science alleging great rates of cancer and other harmful impacts from the location at the church.

But Jeffrey Wheeler from the town’s Office of Community Development told the board that cell antennas “is heavily, heavily regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. The issue of health concerns can not [be part] of the review.”

“For example, if the town said ‘no’ due to health concerns, that will make that decision ripe for a lawsuit,” said Wheeler. 

What appeared to sway the selectmen Friday were recent votes by Town Meeting in Arlington and Lexington to add the Special Permit requirement in their towns.

“The argument could be made that it’s … good risk management to elevate the level of the process. And it shows the town does its due diligence,” said Sarno.

“I believe that this article will allow residents to vent their frustrations and increase the chances both sides can come to a mutually agreed to solution,” said Paolillo. 

In recent years, the Zoning Board of Appeals has been seen as increasingly hostile to commercial interests, opposing the building of a boutique hotel, a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise and a day care facility while having voted to restrict the number of days residents can rent their homes on the popular site Airbnb. 

While voting for passing the “favorable action” measure, the Selectmen did not appear to believe a Special Permit process would unduly delay the issuance of the permit and subsequently a building permit for

“We were told the difference between a normal permit and a Special Permit depending on the substance, could be business as usual,” said Jim Williams, noting advice from Planning Board Chair Elizabeth Allison.

At Friday’s meeting, Sarno introduced an incentive for the town to become directly involved in the process, revealing a plan by the residents to require Verizon to indicate if a town-owned building “that might be suitable.”

“And there the town would get the money,” said Sarno. She pointed to an annual revenue of $43,900 from two cell facilities, on the Belmont Police Headquarters on Concord Avenue and the exterior tower on upper Concord Avenue across from Somerset Street.

What all sides did agree is that approving the requirement of a Special Permit will increase the chances of litigation from either the carrier or the residents depending which way the ZBA decides. 

Town Selects Firm for Community Path Feasibility Study, Set to Sign Contract

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The East Bay Bike Path from Bristol to Providence, RI, created by the PARE Corp.

The long-awaited feasibility study to recommend a preferred route for a two-and-a-quarter mile long community path running through Belmont appears well on its way to becoming a reality. PARE Corp., the firm selected by both the Board of Selectmen and an advisory group to perform the study, has met a critical contract demand.

“There are only have a few things left to work out,” said David Kale, Belmont Town Administrator at an early morning Selectmen’s meeting on Tuesday, May 31, after announcing that PARE’s bid price for the study was below the $200,000 limit placed on the job by Belmont Town Meeting last year.

Kale also announced Tuesday the town will receive $100,000 from the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation to assist in paying for the study, funds secured by Belmont State Rep. Dave Rogers. That will be added to the $100,000 in Capital Budget funds allocated by Town Meeting in June 2015 to be used by the end of fiscal year on June, 31.

When asked when a contract for the feasibility study could be signed, Kale would only say “soon.”

After obtaining six formal bids during the Request for Proposal process, PARE, with locations in Foxboro and Lincoln, RI, was the first choice of the Selectmen and the Community Path Implementation Advisory Committee, which has spent the past 18 months reviewing years of studies and analysis.

PARE was the one firm which has a background in studying and creating bike and community paths.

The feasibility study, which has a completion date of Dec. 31, 2016, will provide an overall cost for a path and a recommendation of the most efficient route from Waltham to Cambridge. The firm and town has committed to several public meetings and visits to the site during the feasibility work.