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.

Selectmen Balk At Hillcrest Neighbors Request on Private to Public Roads.

By 4 Comments

Photo: The roads in the Hillcrest neighborhood. 

While filing out of the Board of Selectmen’s meeting Monday night, May 23, the consensus among the majority of homeowners from Belmont’s Hillcrest neighborhood of transforming their private roads into public ways was fairly succinct.

“It’s back to the drawing board,” said David Hurley, a Birch Hill Road homeowner who is a leader of the effort to transfer several roads – including Crestview Road, Evergreen Way, Longmeadow Road, Spring Valley Road, Stony Brook Road, and Woodfall Road to name a few – on the northwestern end of Belmont from private to public stewardship.

While the homeowners who live on the streets located on Belmont Hill  and town officials agree that the increasingly worn and ragged roadways should come under local control – for safety and fairness reasons, said Hurley – a new impediment has been revealed which is a deal breaker for the town.

The potential of a big fat lawsuit.

In the opinion of the town’s legal representative, unless the group advocating the change can convince each of the approximate 180 property owners to go along with a deal, the threat of a renegade homeowner who feels cheated by the process could end up costing the town far more than any

“Anytime a government agency exercises the power of eminent domain, anyone who is dissatisfied with the amount … given for their property has a two-year period to file in Superior Court for a jury to determine the damages,” said George Hall, Belmont’s Town Counsel at the meeting that served as an update for an initial request from a neighborhood group back on March 14.

Hall said an aggrieved homeowner would not just be entitled to the fair market value of the property but also argue that the remaining land had been diminished in value. 

And the risk of litigation is real, said Selectmen Chair Mark Paolillo, recalling a few years back a “simple” taking of land on Trapelo Road resulted in the town occurring more cost than it ever expected.

“My point of view is to trying and find a way forward, but the town will need to be protected itself from future litigation,” he said,

To avoid the risk, Hall is advising the Selectmen only to move forward with the plan in which each of the 181 homeowners signs off on the town taking their property – the roadway in front of their homes to the centerline of the road – and for what cost.

But so far, the group leading the charge has received the backing of three-quarters of Hillcrest homeowners.

Currently, about 69 percent of homeowners approve the private-to-public transfer, 10 percent – 18 households in total – are opposed, and 30 have not yet been contacted to turn over the streets maintenance and ownership to the town, said Hurley.

“It would really be difficult for us to ask town meeting to accept these roads as public ways with the threat of litigation out there,” said Paolillo.

The mandate for 100 percent was hardly what the residents wanted to hear.

“You’re putting us back to square one,” said Al Murphy of Longmeadow Road, who with Hurley has been leading the neighborhood initiative. 

One solution broached by Selectman Jim Williams who suggested that some streets or stretches of roadways can be handed over to the town if those sections received unanimity for the overall plan.  

Both sides spoke on the merits of adding the seven private roads into the fold.

“It’s a safety and a fairness issue,” said Hurley, who said the town already plows and patches the streets which are accessed by vehicles and pedestrians. 

“If it were up to me there would be no private streets in town,” said Hurley, adding there are too many “gray areas” with private ways. 

While the town would like to foster the transfer of the collective roads, it will only take possession of the streets after each has been repaired and passes town muster.

Town Administrator David Kale outlined one of two ways the residents can bring the streets up to standard; either the homeowners fix the streets out of pocket or accept a betterment process – a tax assessed on owners.

According to Hall, the betterment approach has lost favor in the past three decades since the passage of Prop. 2 1/2 in the early 1980s as communities has found it harder to find a ready pot of money to pay for the upfront repairs. The Office of Community Development has estimated the total cost of upgrading the roadways at $2.1 million.

It would ultimately be a vote by Town Meeting whether the town accepts the transfer.

When Hurley asked the board’s position if the town would accept the roads if they were repaved and repaired, the selectmen suggested a willingness to present such a deal to Town Meeting, but with one very large caveat.

While in favor of such a deal, “you still need 100 percent so you’re still stuck wth that,” said Paolillo. 

 

Overnight Paving on Belmont Street to Cambridge Line Set for Mid-June

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Street, readied to be paved again. 

One of the last major components of the $17.1 million state-financed Trapelo Road/Belmont Street Reconstruction Project will get underway as the Board of Selectmen approved approximately a week of overnight paving of Belmont Street and a portion of Trapelo Road from Common Street in Cushing Square to Erickson Street on the Cambridge city line. 

Beginning Monday night, June 13, Newport Construction will be paving the main thoroughfare between 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. for six nights until June 18, said Glenn Clancy, town engineer and director of the Office of Community Development. 

Access to driveways along the work area may be restricted so residents should park on side streets away from Belmont Street if there is a need to access a vehicle overnight.

Residents with questions should contact the office of Community Development at 617-993-2665.

Belmont’s Second Gun Buy Back Set for June 11

By Leave a Comment

Photo: A gun buy back in Florida.

There is a perception that gun buyback programs should be concentrated in high crime areas, Belmont Assistant Police Chief James MacIsaac told the Belmont Board of Selectmen at its meeting Monday, May 23. 

“So it was bit surprising two years ago that we discovered there was a real need for this event in Belmont,” MacIsaac told the Belmontonian after the meeting. 

After a total of 62 guns were brought in 2014, Belmont Police Department and private religious groups have once again joined together to hold a second gun buyback event, this time in coordination with neighboring police departments.

The regional event will occur on Saturday, June 11, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Belmont DPW Yard, 37 C Street. 

Belmont Police is partnering with their colleagues in Arlington, Cambridge, Somerville, Watertown, the Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office, the Belmont Religious Council and individual houses of worship including co-sponsors:

  • All Saints’ Episcopal Church, 
  • Belmont-Watertown United Methodist Church,
  • Beth El Temple,
  • First Baptist Church of Belmont,
  • First Church Belmont, Unitarian Universalists,
  • Plymouth Congregational Church, and
  • New Roads Catholic Community.

The buy back allows residents a safe way to dispose of unwanted firearms and ammunition, no questions asked. All firearms turned in at the gun buyback were turned over to the Massachusetts State Police to be destroyed.

During the inaugural purchase in 2014, a variety of firearms were accepted including, rifles, shotguns, pistols and a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun.

MacIsaac said in addition to peace of mind, safer house and community, participants will receive gift cards to local grocery stores – purchased by the religious organizations – when they drop off their unwanted firearms. The Belmont Police ask that firearms be transported inside vehicle trunks unloaded, safety engaged, inside a box, bag or case. There is no limit to the number of firearms that can be turned in. 

Belmont Police is asking that firearms be transported inside vehicle trunks unloaded, safety engaged, inside a box, bag or case. There is no limit to the number of firearms that can be turned in. Belmont police has set up the following special phone line to receive questions and/or requests for assistance in safely transporting firearms: 617-993-2529

The Belmont Police Department and Middlesex Sherriff’s Office will provide on-duty officers at the event to receive weapons for the safe storage, followed by destruction in accordance with state law. 
For more information go to www.belmontgunbuyback.org 

To make a tax-deductible donation, please make the check payable to: Belmont Religious Council (Belmont Gun Buy Back in the Memo line) and mail to 

BRC c/o David Alper

One Oak Avenue

Belmont, MA 02478  

New Cushing Square Traffic Light Pattern Set to Start May 31

By 1 Comment

Photo: The intersection at Cushing Square.

As of May 31, driving efficiency will be coming to Cushing Square, whether you’re ready or not.

While it was apparent that many residents were happy with the old pattern of traffic lights at the busy intersection of Trapelo Road and Common Street, one entity that wasn’t were the engineers from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation which has been working on the $17 million Trapelo Road/Belmont Street Corridor Reconstruction project for the past two years.

According to State Sen. Will Brownsberger in a note to his constituents, the engineers will introduce a new traffic light phasing that will allow a greater number of vehicles to move through the square than under the current system.

This is the state’s second attempt to alter the long-time pattern of red and green lights at the corner – last fall it tried unsuccessfully to change the light phasing only to go back to the pre-project configuration.

The current system allows vehicles on Common Street headed towards Watertown get a green light to either travel straight or take a left while cars headed down Common into Belmont have to stop at a red light. Then, that reverses happens.

“This is very inefficient because most of the traffic in both directions would like to go straight. One wants the two straight movements to share green time,” noted Brownsberger. “After a lot of debate, a new approach has emerged which should be clear for drivers and is more efficient than any of the previously attempted configurations.”

The engineer’s explanation of this new approach appears below (with some additions from me):

  • For vehicles traveling on Trapelo Road, there will be no change.
  • The south bound Common Street (towards Watertown) lights will have a left arrow and a green ball light that still turn green simultaneously.
  • But, the south-bound green arrow will turn to red while the south bound straight ball light remains green, allowing vehicles on Common Street heading toward Watertown to continue towards Watertown.  But vehicles in the left turn lane which are turning left onto Trapelo Road will have to stop.
  • When that south-bound left arrow goes red, the north-Belmont bound Common Street lights will go green for both north lanes.  For south bound vehicles on Common Street in the right lane and heading toward Watertown, they will find that, during the latter part of their green phase, traffic will start coming from the opposite direction of Common Street and some of that traffic will be wanting to turn left in front of them.
  • The North Belmont bound vehicles will see green balls only (no left arrow), as is common at many intersections around the state. There will be a “left-turn-yield-on-green ball” sign, again as is common at many intersections. For vehicles on Common Street coming from Watertown, they will now find that traffic will be coming from the opposite direction of Common Street when they have the green indication and the vehicles turning left into Trapelo Road toward Waverley Square will need to yield to traffic coming from the other direction of Common Street.

“The beauty of this approach is that (a) the signage will be simpler — the complicated signs with three-headed arrows will be less critical; and (b) if north-bound traffic makes the mistake that it tends to make — thinking that the straight move to continue on Common Street is a left turn, they will actually not conflict with the straight movement from the other direction,” said Brownsberger.

The only time they will need to think is when they are making the hard left onto Trapelo and on that movement, it is reasonable to expect the drivers will exercise the caution that they generally should on a left turn with no arrow, he noted.

Belmont DPW Recycling Event, Saturday, May 14

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Recycling event, Saturday, May 14.

Belmont is holding its annual town-wide Recycling Event this Saturday, May 14 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Department of Public Works Town Yard, 37 C St.

It will be a one-day drop off of the following items:

  • Rigid plastics
  • Textiles
  • Styrofoam
  • Paper shredding (with a secure mobile document shredding)

For more information: call 617-993-2689 or learn more online at: http://www.belmont-ma.gov/dpw-highway-division/pages/recycling-trash-information

BELMONT RESIDENTS ONLY: IDs REQUIRED.