Chair’s Sudden Resignation Has Planning Board Scrambling for New Member

Photo: Mike Battista (right) and current Selectman Sami Baghdady.

The sudden and unexpected resignation of the popular chair of the Belmont Planning Board has town officials scrambling to fill that slot just as the board tackles several high-profile tasks.

The departure of Mike Battista on Nov. 11 is a significant loss to the board as he takes half a decade of experience and institutional history with him, having been on the board since 2010 and chair since 2013.

“I enjoyed my time as a member and as chair, I got to work with amazing people, both my colleagues on the Board as well as Town Staff and Residents. Giving back to a great Town was worthwhile and fulfilling. I leave with wonderful memories knowing the Board is in good hands,” he said, as former Warrant Committee Chair Elizabeth Allison temporarily takes over the board’s reins.

“Five years is longer than I hoped to be involved and I felt it was a perfect time to move on. My travel and work schedules are more demanding leaving less time for the important business of the Planning Board,” said the president of Moniques Bath Showroom in Watertown.

Battista leaves as the board is working to establish a sweeping town-wide zoning realignment for residential structures while shepherding the long-delayed Cushing Village complex towards a conclusion.

To fill this critical post, the Belmont Board of Selectmen is seeking volunteers interested in serving on the Board for the remainder of Battista’s term that will expire on June 30, 2016.

The primary objective of the Planning Board is to protect and preserve the character and the quality of life that defines Belmont. The Board addresses numerous issues that will likely have an impact on Belmont’s future, such as:

  • drafting zoning proposals,
  • studying land-use patterns,
  • reviewing traffic concerns, and
  • evaluating specific development projects.

There is no set criteria for membership and those with a variety of backgrounds will be considered. Residents with a knowledge and experience in the areas of land use, planning, and related law are highly encouraged to apply.

To apply, residents must complete a Community Volunteer Interest Form and submit it to the Office of the Board of Selectmen along with the requested supporting documents.

Interest forms can be obtained on the Selectmen’s page of the Town website or by visiting the office during regular business hours. The Office of the Board of Selectman is located in Town Hall; forms can be submitted via e-mail to selectmen@belmont-ma.gov.

The deadline for applying for the position is Wednesday, Dec. 9.

 

Town Wide, Town Meeting Nomination Papers Available Next Week

Photo: Nomination papers 

Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman told The Belmontonian nomination papers for Town Meeting and Town-wide office will be available at the Clerk’s Office starting next week. 

Cushman said she has yet to set the deadline for returning nomination papers to the Town Clerk’s office. 

The 2016 Town Election will take place on Tuesday, April 5. 

If you’re thinking of running for elected office in Belmont, Cushman is advising potential “runners” to take a look at the guide for Belmont’s elected government and how to run for elected office in the “Town of Homes.”

To be considered a candidate for town-wide office (such as selectman, school committee and several boards), you must be at least 18 years old and a registered voter in Belmont.

All candidates for town-wide office must secure the signatures of at least 50 registered Belmont voters. Cushman recommends that more signatures are collected and submitted in the event that some signatures are invalid. Holiday parties and get-togethers are great places to start gathering signatures.

Town Meeting Members whose terms expire in 2016 will receive a letter from the Town Clerk’s office by January asking if you would like to be considered a candidate for re-election. The member must sign and return the affirmation form to the Town Clerk’s office to be considered a candidate for re-election. 

Candidates for Town Meeting must secure the signatures of at least 25 registered voters from the precinct and return the signed nomination papers. Once again, Cushman recommends that more signatures are collected and submitted in the event that some signatures are invalid.

Despite T Assurances, Residents Push Against Pleasant St. Station ‘Alternative’

Photo: Erik Stoothoff, chief engineer for the MBTA.

Despite assurances by the MBTA a new commuter rail station on Pleasant Street is currently just one of many options being considered, the overwhelming number of residents who attended a public meeting on the future of the Waverley Station weren’t buying it.

“I don’t understand why Belmont must pay the price for the MBTA’s negligence or bad faith, but here we are,” stated Sterling Crockett of Trapelo Road to cheers of more than 100 people in attendance.  

But for the T, the issue at hand is nothing but removing obstacles that prevent all residents from taking the commuter line.  

“We are here in earnest the process of evaluating what the solution is for making the trains accessible here in Belmont,” said Erik Stoothoff, chief engineer for the MBTA.

The meeting held on Monday night, Nov. 16, at the Beech Street Center, was an opportunity for the MBTA to provide a preliminary findings as it is completing its feasibility assessment and evaluation of what would meet the requirements to update the facility so it is accessible to disabled individuals under the Americans with Disability Act.

The MBTA is currently under a legal order from the state’s Architectural Access Board to bring the station up to code after it made about $400,000 in repairs to the platform in 2012, triggering a review. 

In fact, it was little different than the initial presentation to Selectmen last month.

“Quite candidly, we have done very little work since our last meeting in anticipation of continuing the dialogue with the townspeople,” said Stoothoff.

John Doherty, who was recently named the Waverley project manager (“The face of the project” said Stoothoff) said the T through the work on the Fitchburg line, is looking to increase ridership, and improve the infrastructure and “multimodal linkage.” 

So far, the options available to the authority’s include:

  • Making the needed improvements at Waverley to make it accessible.
  • Close the station permanently.
  • Build a new Belmont station.
  • Combine Belmont’s two stations into a new one on Pleasant Street.

Doherty said due to the number of riders and the limited space, renovating the site would be “a pricey change” since the MBTA is attempting to standardize platform heights – to a “high-level” at four feet above the track running the length of the station. Currently, riders must descend stairs and jump onto the platform at both Waverley and Belmont stations. 

Also, previous ramp configuration would be “extremely difficult” to construct on the site as it would take up a great deal of space.

“It’s something we’re not looking to do in that form,” said Doherty.

Rather, newly reconstructed stairs and four elevators (two inbounds, two outbound) would be the alternative to bring Waverley up to ADA code.

Reiterating a point made at the last time the MBTA met with the Selectmen, Doherty said repair work at the aging and inaccessible Belmont Station, located at the Lions Club at the entrance to Belmont Center, while not imminent “that station will need to be upgraded … so when we do work at Waverley, we will consider what will need to be done at Belmont and fold them in together.” 

With the T reluctant to move Belmont station eastward as it would impact a long stretch of homes along Channing Road, “so rather than shifting east, shift west … and that one-mile stretch between Waverley and Belmont Center it becomes a natural progression [to look in that area],” said Stoothoff.

The one new feature is “a conceptional idea” of where a new station would be placed and its appearance. Located where the school bus depot is located on property owned by the Tocci brothers, the new station would also take a portion of land from Belmont’s Department of Public Work’s yard. 

The new station would be about a quarter mile up the tracks from Waverley towards Belmont station with a platform long enough to accommodate a nine-car train or about 800-feet, have parking and a pedestrian bridge so travelers can cross the tracks safely.

The total cost would be in the range of $30 million, roughly the same of renovating the Waverley stop to allow it to be accessible.

After 20 minutes. Residents and some from Watertown and Waltham citizens took the MBTA to task for attempting to move the stop to a not in my backyard constituency as well as several people who hoped to use their expertise in related fields to help convince the agency the best approach remains to keep the station opened. 

Judith Sarno spoke for many in the 3rd precinct where she is a Town Meeting member saying she was “adamantly opposed” to a new station as it would bring large numbers of vehicles into the neighborhoods.

For Anne Mahon, the station is a transportation hub for residents living in affordable housing in Belmont, Watertown and Waltham, providing them transportation to Boston’s job market. Moving it outside the square, even by just a quarter mile, could impact their employment opportunities.

After viewing the first selectmen’s meeting, Unity Avenue’s Erin Lubien said she left feeling “there have to be other options” to preserve the station that is an essential part of Waverley Square.

Rather than just write a letter or attending public meetings to express her concerns, Lubien contacted Annis Sengupta, an acquaintance and neighbor who just happens to be a Ph.D. in Urban Planning, to create a series of charts indicating the economic and transportation necessity the station has become and submitted other options, such as a municipal parking garage to accommodate commuters.

“I think there are a lot of people who want to work with you and try to solve this problem,” said Sengupta.

Primer: What to Know about Waverley Station’s Past, Present and Future

Photo: Waverley Station (Wikipedia)

The public meeting being held Monday, Nov. 16 at 7 p.m. at the Beech Street Center is advertised as representatives from the MBTA and the state’s Department of Transportation updating Belmont residents and commuters on a series of “options” to bring the Waverley commuter rail station up to code with the Americans with Disability Act.

But to Sue Bass of the Belmont Citizens Forum – the community organization seeking to maintain the small-town atmosphere of Belmont by preserving its natural and historical resources, limiting traffic growth, and enhancing pedestrian safety – the meeting isn’t likely to result in a Chinese menu of choices and alternatives for residents to select from. Rather, “hovering over the event” is whether Belmont can retain its “walkable” stations or will the future bring a new, parking dependent facility.

Bass’ Should Waverley Station Close?, written for the Forum’s November/December newsletter, is a history and primer on the issues facing the state, public transportation agency and Belmont concerning the station.

Below is Bass’ analysis, with permission from the Belmont Citizens Forum:

Should Belmont continue to have two commuter rail stations that people can walk to? Or is it better to have just one station with a parking garage that people can drive to? That’s not officially the topic of the MBTA commuter rail presentation on November 16, but it’s the question hovering over the event.

Formally, the meeting is about the T’s need to spend $15 million or more on a station that serves only 117 daily riders—or to close the station entirely. This issue arises because, several years ago, the MBTA spent $353,281 repaving the platform. That was more than 30 percent of the station’s value. In addition, the repaving did not raise the platforms to the level of the trains. Either violation alone—the spending or the failure to raise the platforms—  required that the station is made accessible for handicapped people, with an elevator or ramps, according to the state’s Architectural Access Board. Appeals have failed. The conclusion seems unassailable—make it accessible or close it. (State Sen.Will Brownsberger did what he called “a deep dive” on the issue, available at willbrownsberger.com/waverley-upgrade-obligation/.)

For the T, this situation either adds millions to its billion-dollar bill for system-wide repairs and upgrades—or it offers an opportunity to speed up commuter rail service on the Fitchburg line by eliminating a station that draws relatively few riders. In fact, it dangles the chance to replace two stations with low ridership by a single station in the middle, along South Pleasant Street, with a parking garage that could increase the total ridership. Daily ridership at the Belmont Center station was only 168 in April 2013, according to the latest data readily available, from the MBTA’s fascinating Ridership and Service Statistics, 2014, nicknamed the Blue Book, which is available at www.mbta.com/bluebook.  The average for the Fitchburg line is 361 boardings per station

For Belmont, sadly, this situation threatens the loss of one or both walkable stations and their possible substitution by a new station to which few could walk—plus a garage that would draw even more traffic to Pleasant Street at rush hours, when it is already jammed.

It’s time for us to do what we do so badly and infrequently: try to look ahead and make wise choices about our future.

To start, why is ridership on the commuter rail so low? From Waverley, the train offers a trip of 10 minutes or less to Porter Square and 20 minutes or less to North Station in Boston. It’s two minutes quicker from Belmont Center.

Parking might be one reason. The MBTA’s Blue Book reports no auto spaces at Waverley, though there are 12 bicycle spaces. It reports 115 auto commuter spaces at Belmont Center, but, in fact, the police department’s traffic office says only 20 spaces are available, at $90 a month—and only a handful of those are spoken for.

Is the price too high, compared with parking downtown? Are people unaware that spaces are available? Would ridership go up if the long-discussed Community Path brings cyclists to the Waverley Square and Belmont Center train stations? Or is the commuter rail service too unreliable, or too infrequent? Do too few people work downtown these days?

Demographically, Belmont should be using more public transportation. “We’re seeing a general trend where the inner core—within [Route] 128—is growing faster than the outer suburbs,” said Eric Bourassa, transportation director for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. “Part of it is because people do want to be closer to transit and commute in that way.”

Of course, Waverley Square has one of the busiest bus routes in the state, 73, with 6,424 daily boardings along the whole route and 753 at Waverley Station.

At the last meeting between MBTA officials and the Belmont Board of Selectmen, on Sept. 28, T officials said part of the challenge in making the two Belmont stations accessible is that both are on curves. The bend in the tracks makes it much more difficult and more expensive to provide roll-on service to the trains. The straight track along Pleasant Street between Waverley and Belmont Center appealed to the T for that reason.

Several in the audience suggested that a small shift in the location of the stop—a dozen feet or so—might solve that problem, at least at Waverley. Is that true? Would other simple solutions shave millions off the price tags for making Waverley accessible? It’s time to find out.

Sue Bass, director emerita

Holiday Parking Cheer: Selectmen OK 2 Free Hours at Municipal Lots

Photo: Don’t put any coins in or swipe you credit card if your staying less than two hours.

The holiday season came early for residents and shoppers who will be shopping for that special gift in Belmont’s three main shopping districts as the Board of Selectmen Monday night, Nov. 9, voted to allow the first two hours free at municipal parking lots town-wide during the holiday season.,

The free parking will take place from Nov. 27 to Dec. 27, said Town Administrator David Kale “as a  ‘welcome back’ gesture” to customers who didn’t want to contend with the road construction occurring throughout Belmont.

Currently, parking in the three municipal lots – Belmont Center, Waverley, and Cushing squares – costs a dollar for each hour and five dollars for the day.

Concerned business owners told Kale the reconstruction of Belmont Center and the work on the $17 million Trapelo/Belmont Corridor project had impacted sales and activity in the past six months. The free parking will be an incentive to draw them back.

Kale said parking enforcement will target the late afternoon hours, after 6 p.m. to keep spaces turning over during the peak shopping times. 

Also, the town will increase the number of trash bins in the business centers, especially in Belmont Center during the annual Belmont Turn on the Town, Dec. 4 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

Belmont Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady said it was also a “tough environment” for store owners along Trapelo Road and especially those in Cushing Square which are dealing with the delay in the construction of the proposed Cushing Village development.

In construction news, Kale said the laying of sidewalks in Belmont Center is proceeding quickly, and the installation of new street lamps has begun on Leonard Street.

Out of Gas: Dalton Road House Denied Gas Link Due to Road Moratorium

Photo: The house under construction at 151 Dalton.

The new house going up at the corner of Betts and Dalton roads will have all the modern amenities a person is looking for in modern construction: high ceilings, wooden floors, modern fixtures and major appliances, all on a quiet corner lot. 

But if the future buyer of the still-to-be-completed house at 151 Dalton Road was expecting the new abode would be heated and powered by natural gas, they will need to wait three more years before they’ll have the opportunity after the Belmont Board of Selectmen voted unanimously Monday night, Nov. 2, to reject a request by regional utility National Grid to extend a gas main down Dalton to service the new house.

The reason for the denial of service to 151 by the board is due to a by-law inspired regulation that places a five-year moratorium on any infrastructure work on a roadway after it was repaved. And Dalton Road was reconstructed two years previous under the town’s Pavement Management process.

After numerous examples of recently rebuilt roads being dug up and leaving streets with substandard patch repairs, Town Meeting passed in 2008 a bylaw granting the ability for the selectmen, through the Department of Public Works, to create a regulation preventing roads from being dug up within five years of repaving. 

According to Glenn Clancy, director of the Office of Community Development, the moratorium has not been a burden on either the town or the utilities as town departments routinely informs residents and companies what streets will be reconstructed and repaved to allow homeowner to request gas service and for services to arrange to replace and repair old mains and other equipment. 

So, why was National Grid before the Selectmen seeking to tear up a recently paved street? Apparently, “exceptions” had been made in the past to the moratorium, and the developer of 151 wanted one of his own.

According to Dennis Regan, the utility’s representative, he understood that an “agreement had been reached between the contractor and the customer (developer Ron Buck) and the Public Works Department,” to allow National Grid to dig a trench to lay the main.

In the resulting discussion, Clancy and Town Administrator David Kale acknowledge exceptions were made to the prohibition in extreme cases such as when there was no other option for a homeowner or developer after making substantial investments in a gas system.

And when the DPW did agree to the exception, the repairs were performed “curb to curb,” large repairs to an entire street to prevent such conditions as sinking roadways and loose asphalt.

The selectmen appeared weary of agreeing to the exemption.

“It would be nice to see the agreement,” quired Belmont Selectman Chair Sami Baghdady.

Selectman Jim Williams said he understood that the abutting residents were unaware of the “agreement that you speak of.” 

When asked if any of the neighbors would like to speak, Dalton Road’s Steve Pinkerton said, “You bet.” 

Pinkerton said he was speaking not just for the dozen or so residents who voiced concern about any major road construction, but also for his neighbor, Varna Terlemezian, who moved into her house at 145 Dalton Rd. when the area was a new subdivision in 1966.

“And [Terlemezian] had waited for two decades to get Dalton Road repaved. It was in shambles,” he said. 

“And now less than two years later, we’re about to rip the street up in front of her house again just for the convenience of a developer with lots of options,” said Pinkerton, who earlier this year led the charge at Town Meeting to place height limitations on new construction in the Shaw Estate neighborhood.

And with developer Buck a no show, the Selectmen voted down the request for relief, with Baghdady suggesting the house could run on propane tanks before coming back to the board in 2018

Lucky 13: Town Names Streets To Be Resurfaced in 2016

Photo: Palfrey Road.

It’s appropriate that Palfrey Road is adjacent to the large United Methodist Church in Cushing Square. Many drivers seek the solace of prayer before navigating the roadway’s deep potholes and numerous ruts that have destroyed their fair share of residents’ vehicles suspensions, alignments and tires over the past decades.

Now those prayers have been answered as the town’s director of Community Development Glenn Clancy announced at Monday’s Belmont Board of Selectmen meeting on Nov. 2, that the entire 1,705 feet of Palfrey along with a dozen other streets will be reconstructed next year as part of the town’s 2016 Pavement Management Plan. 

“Here’s some good news,” Clancy told the board announcing an agreement with the town’s long-time pavement management consultant Vannasse Hangen Brustlin for $106,400 to perform pavement design and contract development for the streets being repaired. 

The roadways in the 2016 Pavement Management Plan are:

  • Clifton Street from Beatrice Circle to Prospect Street
  • Barlett Avenue from White Street to Harriet Avenue
  • Winslow Road from Hammond Road to Palfrey Road
  • Palfrey Road from Gilbert Road to Common Street
  • Payson Terrace from Payson Road (east) to Payson Road (west)
  • Glendale Road from Common to Orchard streets
  • Cushing Avenue from Pine Street to Payson Road
  • Sharpe Road from School to Washington streets
  • Marion Road from Belmont to Grove streets
  • Albert Avenue from Tobey Road to both Lake and Brighton streets
  • Simmons Avenue from Scott Road to Brighton Street
  • Middlecot Street from north of Cowdin Street to both Claflin and Cross streets
  • Sherman Street from Brighton to Dean streets.

Selectmen Slam Williams for Contacting Investment Bank Without Board’s Knowledge

Photo: Jim Williams (left) making his presentation to the Board of Selectmen.

In a rare public scolding of a fellow board member, the colleagues of Belmont Selectman Jim Williams – Chairman Sami Baghdady and Mark Paolillo – pointedly rebuked the newly-elected member for initiating contact with a large St. Louis-based investment bank to underwrite millions of dollars in taxable bonds to pay off the town’s pension obligations without informing them or town officials.

“It was totally inappropriate for you to have gone out and represented the town to this … organization,” said Paolillo.

While he later admitted in a qualified apology that he may have jumped the gun in terms of approaching the bank, Williams – elected a little more than seven months ago – said the letter and a presentation he made earlier to the board outlining his strategy were the opening gambit in his and his supporters push to move forward with dramatic structural change in how the town will pay its future long-term obligations.

“The dam has burst,” said Williams after the meeting to the Belmontonian, indicating the long-anticipated debate on OPEB expenses – which he ran on in the April town election to an upset victory over incumbent Andy Rojas – has begun in earnest. 

While Williams is holding his cards close to his vest – he would only say that it is up to the Selectmen to approve a change in strategy and that nearly all the information the board needs to make an informed decision has been completed or will be produced in the near future – he did drop a tantalizing political tidbit of a long-term strategy to move the town in what he believes is the correct direction.

“There are elections coming,” Williams told the Belmontonian after the meeting. Up for re-election in April 2015 is Paolillo – who said last week that he is likely to run – and Town Treasurer Floyd Carman, a supporter and architect of the current OPEB policy. 

Williams had hoped a presentation he made to the board – a 13 screen page document that was not on the board’s official public agenda having been submitted to the Town Clerk at 4 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 23 – would spark debate on his “scenario” of paying off the town’s pension and other benefits commitments with the issuance of pension obligation bonds. 

But the selectman soon discovered the spotlight fell wholly on himself for what several people saw as a serious breach of protocol that could result in serious legal consequences.

“There is an appearance that you and some of your supporters are going out and making representations to people and investment bankers and companies without first having the proper process … among the three-person Board of Selectmen,” Baghdady told Williams. 

Reading from a letter sent to Williams from the investment bank Stifel Financial Corp., Baghdady said since speaking to Williams, the bank had “confirmed certain preliminary terms of our engagement to serve as lead managing underwriter” for the town as it sells up to $60 million in taxable bonds.

Stifel, which opened a public finance branch office in Boston two years ago, is a significant player in municipal financing, working with water and sewer agencies, large schools districts and parking and transit authorities.  

Furthermore, Stifel indicated that “[i]t is our understanding that you [Williams] have the authority to bind the town by contact with us,” with Williams’ signature at the end of the letter seeming to affirm Stifel’s assertion, said Baghdady still reading from the letter.

“It bothers me that one selectman, without having brought to discussion in advance, goes and represents to an investment banker … that [he has] the authority to be negotiating these things with them,” said Baghdady, contrary to the board’s current OPEB strategy, designed by the Town Treasurer Floyd Carman and approved by Town Meeting.

Paolillo later noted that only Carman as town treasurer can initiate contact with financial entities for such town business. Carman, who arrived at the meeting midway through Williams’ earlier presentation, 

Baghdady also expanded his personal concerns that newly-appointed members  – several with Williams’ endorsement – to non-statutory town committees such as Economic Development Advisory Committee, also called Stifel and other investment banks “and purport to communicate as though they have the authority to speak on behalf of the town about these major policy decisions that this board has not taken a position on” while pressuring members of the Warrant Committee – the town’s financial watchdog agency – and town officials to sign the Stifel letter. 

Paolillo reiterated Baghdady’s irritation that Williams shared the contents of the letter to political supporters who used it to push for its approval.

“With all due respect, to share what I believe would have been a confidential document with your former campaign manager and other supporters and then lobby us on why we were delaying signing this letter. I mean, are you kidding me?” said Paolillo. 

Baghdady said the “shock” of Williams’ action goes beyond the board; members of the Warrant Committee and other community leaders who asked “‘What is going on here’? Why isn’t the board as a whole deliberating?” 

After the meeting, Williams identified the residents “pressuring” the selectmen and Town Administrator David Kale to “sign the letter” as Erin Lubien and Julie Crockett, two of Williams’ supporters during his run for selectmen.

Williams told the board that “neither of them called me, and if they called me I would have explained to them not to call. I apologize for that.” 

Paolillo and Baghdady asked Williams to “work together and agree that this is a lesson learned?”

“Let’s discuss matters first and then present a direction on what we want to do,” Paolillo said.

A somewhat contrite Williams noted that when an employee at the former Swiss Bank Corp. was sent to the woodshed, it was called “having your head washed. And I’m OK with that.” 

Williams said his colleagues points of his actions “were well taken,” admitting that the process “has taken on a life of its own.” 

“What I want to say is that it’s not how it appears, and I wasn’t totally in the rogue because I wanted to find out for the board how do you go about” hiring a firm such as Stifel.

But Williams would not be pushed from his goal of moving forward addressing what he views is a pending financial crisis Belmont is facing from the current strategy. 

“We need to decide whether we are going to let the status quo continue, whether we try to extend the pension schedule or whether we are going to do the pension obligation bond or something different,” he said. 

 

Town Sells Woodfall Road Parcel for $1.75 Million

Photo: Woodfall Road.

Nearly a decade after it was first put up for sale, the town-owned land known as the Woodfall Road parcel was sold Friday, Oct. 23, to a three-person development team for $1.75 million. 

“It’s truly been a long process,” said Sami Baghdady, chair of the Belmont Board of Selectmen who announced the final sale during the Selectmen’s meeting at Town Hall on Tuesday, Oct. 27. 

Representatives of Dani Chedid of the Lexington’s Phoenix Construction Group, the lead developer of the group, signed the paperwork securing the deed and handed the town the check on Monday, Oct. 26.

The land, adjacent to the Belmont Country Club in the Hillcrest neighborhood on the west side of Belmont Hill, will soon be the site of four luxury residential homes, according to the team.

The sale comes five months after the team signed a purchase and sale agreement with the town to buy the land.

Under an existing agreement with Town Meeting, proceeds from the sale of town-owned property will be directed to the Capital Budget Committee, which has a backlog of requests from town departments for needed purchases. 

Nearly two years ago, the team offered $2.2 million of the site, outbidding Northland Residential of Burlington (which constructed the Woodlands at Belmont Hill) by approximately $1.5 million in December 2013 to begin working on the town on a final price tag for the property that will be home to four luxury single-family homes. 

Since then, Belmont – through Town Administrator David Kale’s office – and contractor have been negotiating a final price for the land after a long due diligence process that included environmental assessments, soil testing, monitoring wetland requirements and, at one point, discussions with the country club on the likelihood of golf balls flying onto the new homes.

Final Chance for Health Department-Sponsored Flu Shot Wednesday, Oct. 21

Photo: Get your flu shot Wednesday evening.

The final date for residents to receive a flu shot sponsored by the town’s Health Department will be Wednesday, Oct. 21 between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. at the Temple Beth El auditorium, 2 Concord Ave.

Residents as young as five years old can receive the flu shot.

There is a limited amount of vaccine, and the clinics will be run on a first come, first served basis.
Bring your health insurance card, as the town, can be reimbursed at no cost to you. Remember to wear a short sleeved shirt.
Call the Belmont Health Department at 617-993-2720 with any questions.