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

By Leave a Comment

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.

 

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

By 1 Comment

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

‘The Final Countdown!’ Cushing Village Developers Must Close by Nov. 19

By Leave a Comment

Photo: After more than two years after being approved to build the project, Cushing Village remains a concept, rather than a development site. 

After a more than two-year hold-up on building the largest commercial development in Belmont in decades, the end – one way or another – appears in sight as the partnership seeking to construct the long-delayed Cushing Village project have less than three weeks to take possession of a valuable town-owned parcel before a special permit expires on Thursday, Nov. 19.

Now 27 months since Bedford-based Smith Legacy Partners won approval from the town’s Planning Board to pursue a building permit for the 187,000 square foot retail/residential/parking complex situated at the corner of Trapelo Road and Common Street, at least one town official is expressing cautious optimism the developers – Smith Legacy joined with the Cambridge firm Urban Spaces this spring – will meet the new due date.

“There’s still some T’s being crossed, and I’s dotted, as long as there’re no further substantive changes, then [this can move forward],” said Sami Baghdady, chair of the Belmont Board of Selectmen at its meeting held Tuesday morning, Oct. 27.

Yet Baghdady made his statement after the board voted Tuesday to approve revisions to a parking management and easement agreements the board approved six weeks ago with the developers after demands by the project’s potential bankers “requesting changes to the language in the documents to protect lender’s rights,” said Baghdady.

Town officials said later the modifications did not alter the 50 parking spaces the town will receive in the Cushing Village complex.

Baghdady noted that in addition to the $850,000 payment the development team must make to Belmont for the parking lot, the developers are required to obtain a building permit and close on the property’s ownership by the 19th.

While saying the board has been “frustrated by the process,” Selectman Mark Paolillo said the more than two years of deferred action “is not this board or the town. Unfortunately, it’s the developers. Hopefully, this is the final delay.” 

The development team is seeking to construct a three-structure complex comprising 115 apartments, 36,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and a garage complex with 230 parking spaces.

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

By 2 Comments

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. 

 

Paolillo: ‘Seriously Leaning Towards’ Selectman Re-election Run

By 1 Comment

Photo: Mark Paolillo.

Belmont Selectman Mark Paolillo said he “is seriously leaning towards” running to retain his seat on the Board of Selectmen as his term will expire in April 2016.

“At some point, I will need to make a definite decision but as of now, I’m heading in that direction,” said the Pilgrim Road resident. 

Paolillo said he was not ready to commit fully to the race due to “changes in the circumstances of my family.” Paolillo’s father, former Cambridge Police Chief Anthony Paolillo, died this summer, and he is assisting his mother after her husband’s death. 

“I just want to wait to see how things are in the next month,” he said.

Paolillo pointed to several unfinished issues facing the town, such as a number of major building projects – a new High School, police station and Department of Public Works facility – as well as the implementation of a community path, that he would like to see either decided or “directed towards completion” as reasons for seeking re-election. 

Paolillo said if he does win a third election, “it will be my final term. There needs to be new blood coming on the board.” 

Paolillo, a financial executive, won his first term in April 2010 by handily defeating incumbent Daniel LeClerc and fellow challenger Anne Mahon. He ran unopposed in 2013. 

Opinion: No Short Cuts on the Cut Through

By 4 Comments

Photo: Paul Roberts (right) speaking at the Special Town Meeting in August.

Six weeks after Belmont’s Town Meeting urged the Board of Selectmen to adhere to the original design for a pedestrian friendly lawn in Belmont Center, it has, instead, unveiled yet another plan to transform a haggard and little used traffic island in front of the downtown Belmont Savings Bank, the third such design since May. The Board will formally present its new plan to the public on Monday, Sept. 28.  If you care about the running of our “Town of Homes,” you should plan on attending. 

The latest design, dubbed the “Belmont Center Green Space Enhancement Concept” does not accede to Town Meeting’s request, made at an Aug. 6 Special Town Meeting at which a motion was adopted that urged the Board to restore directly the original design for the Town Center. I stand with the majority of Town Meeting members in believing that the original plan – “Plan A” – is the best path forward to realizing the vision for a 21st century Town Center that puts pedestrians on an equal footing with automobiles and motorists. 

As for the Selectmen’s new design, I’ll say this: it is more attractive than both the cut through road that exists today and the “Plan B” design that the Selectmen adopted in their May Meeting. The compromise vision includes a narrower, brick-paved roadway with parallel parking spaces and pavers. But, it falls far well short of Plan A, which created a real space for residents in the Town Center to congregate without having to negotiate street crossings and automobile traffic. In short: the latest design is a step in that direction – but only a step. 

That’s why I will encourage the Selectmen, on Monday, to look at this “Enhancement Concept,” appreciate its strengths, thank the citizens who worked hard on realizing the compromise, including Town Meeting members Bonnie Friedman, Ralph Jones and Andy Rojas and then kindly return to Plan A. 

However, if (as I suspect) the Board is intent on pursuing its own vision for the Town Center, then they need to do what they did not do in May, namely: to step back and allow the Belmont community to consider their plan and ways to improve it. To do otherwise, by stifling public comment on the plan at their meeting, or by introducing and formally adopting a redesign would be a huge mistake. It would also be a sad reprise of the Board’s ill-considered May 28 meeting, at which they used a citizens’ petition as justification for unceremoniously ditching the blueprint for the Town Center redesign in favor of a never-before-seen “Plan B.“ That, despite that fact that construction on the Town Center had begun. 

The justification for allowing time for consideration is simple: there are many questions that must be answered about the new design. We see an artist’s rendering of the new plan, and it looks nice – but it is just a picture. The Town needs to know if this byway will it work once constructed. And that’s a much bigger question.  Among the questions, I pose to the Board are these: has a qualified engineering firm reviewed the new plans and deemed them compliant with state and federal guidelines for safety? How will the town control access to this narrow roadway to ensure pedestrian safety? Will there be limits on thru traffic for particular times of day? If so, what hours will the road be accessible? How will the town prevent motorists from using the cut through during off hours? What will the posted speed limit be? Will there be limits on vehicle size over this road? How many and what kinds of parking will be placed on the cut-through? How will traffic in and out of the Belmont Savings Bank garage be managed to ensure pedestrian safety? 

There are many other questions that might be asked, as well, and the Board of Selectmen needs to be open to hearing them. It should provide adequate time – measured in weeks, not days –for the community to make sense of their proposal and to ask for modifications to the design where needed. Only then can Belmont be sure the roadway constructed will be both safe and practical in a heavily used and congested town center. 

The unfortunate truth is that our Selectmen were presented with the opportunity to achieve a new and grander vision for Belmont Center in this redesign – a vision that would position us for the America of the next 50 years, not the last 50 years. In the face of that opportunity, however, the Board blinked. Rather than gaze steadily into the future, they opted to look backward and cling to what felt familiar. As a community, we’re still trying to pick up the pieces from that and recover a modest share of what might have been. The Selectmen can use their position, their authority and what good will they have left to help achieve that. 

That work starts Monday evening. I’ll see you there.

Paul Roberts is a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8 and the editor of Blogging Belmont. 

Psst: Can You Keep a Secret? Private/Public Scheme to Build New Skating Rink

By 4 Comments

Photo: “Skip” Viglirolo Skating Rink.

It’s the worst kept secret in Belmont: a proposal to build a new private/public skating rink and field house on the site of the existing nearly half century old “Skip” Viglirolo rink and the White Field House adjacent to Harris Field off Concord Avenue.

Not that this latest news required a “spoiler” alert for its official unveiling at a big joint meeting at the Chenery Middle School on Tuesday, Sept. 8, as information surrounding the proposal has leaked to the public over the summer.

According to four separate sources, the project – final cost is still to be determined but its likely several million dollars – to replace the existing structures have been on the minds of many for decades.

Now, after recent examples of private donors using their wallets and connects to successfully improve, maintain or rebuild municipal and school properties – laying down the new varsity court in the Wenner Field House being the latest – a new group has set their sights on what many consider a town asset that has seen its best days pass it by, the “Skip” Viglirolo Skating Rink. 

Built in 1969 during the rise of the Boston Bruins and Bobby Orr, the rink’s limitations and faults are legendary to visitors, players and parents. The physical structure was never fully constructed with heavy sheet metal side walls with gaping openings that allow both the weather – whether it is blistering cold or spring time warmth – and birds to migrate inside.

There is no heat or comfortable seating for viewers; the locker rooms are old, and the lighting is far from adequate while the only “warm up” space for spectators is the small snack room.

Editor’s note: One visitor from Calgary, Canada – no stranger to wind swept blizzard conditions – told the Belmontonian editor in 2002 there were warmer outdoor rinks in his hometown than the indoor Viglirolo rink.

But despite its threadbare condition, the rink is an asset to the town and hockey programs from beginners to high school varsity programs, providing a place to skate and practice at an affordable price. 

“Many towns would die to have its own rink,” said one

In addition, the White Field House – dedicated to a Belmont High alum who died during the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 – while structurally sound, doesn’t provide space for the large number of female athletes who could use a changing area adjacent to the main athletic field.

In past documents, town officials and Capital Budgets placed the rink was one of the town’s major capital expenses that required addressing.

The sources – all who spoke on background as they promised not to reveal the proposal – said a spokesperson representing a group of residents advanced an initial proposal in early 2015 to a Financial Task Force subcommittee during the later stages of its tenure. to replace the dilapidated rink with a new structure and provide a new field house using private fund.

The initial response from town and government committees was enthusiastic yet guarded. While the outline was interesting, the group was told much more work needed to be done in both how the deal would be financed and, just as important, provide greater detail concerning the governance and use of the facility once it is built.

Recently, a dispute has been brewing in Wilmington over the Ristuccia Arena, constructed with the town’s help in the 1980s to provide access to town youth and adult hockey programs, which is accused of now catering to professional hockey teams, private school programs and elite skating clubs over local interests. 

The private group returned in late July for a formal presentation to the Belmont Board of Selectmen with representatives of town departments and the Captial Budget and Warrant committees as well as the Planning Board in attendance. 

Highlights of the proposal:

  • A new rink design will require taking some land from surrounding practice fields using by Belmont High School and youth sports programs.
  • The design of the rink and field house will allow for on-site parking, which will relieve traffic and parking congestion along Concord Avenue.
  • The town will benefit financially from the rink’s hourly rental fee that will be an income
    stream.
  • Belmont Savings Bank will take a major role in financing the proposal.

While the Selectmen, department heads and governmental committees who attended the presentation came away eager to move forward with the plan, the land on which the rink and field house reside is “owned” by the Belmont School Committee. The six-member committee will need to sign off on any proposal to see it advance from the blueprint stage.

This marks the second time the School Committee will be asked to allow land assigned to athletic fields to be used for a development; in May 2013, the committee denied a request from the Library Board of Trustees to use a small section of the same playing field for a proposed $19 million library. 

While nearly all  is enthused about the proposal, all sides decided to keep a somewhat tight lid on the plan in deference to the School Department who will have the first say about whether the proposal will work or not.

“We don’t want a repeat of the library fiasco,” said one source. 

Both Sides of Town Green Dispute Seeking Something Like A Compromise

By 1 Comment

Photo: Bonnie Friedman at the Board of Selectmen meeting, August 2015.

Where two months previous shouting, demands, and a Belmont Police officer were evident, on Monday, Aug. 17, the two sides of the “Town Green” dispute came together at Town Hall to start the process of finding a lasting compromise to a dispute in the $2.8 million Belmont Center Reconstruction Project one resident called “disappointing.”

The once warring sides – the Belmont Board of Selectmen opposed by a large group of citizen advocates who called for a Special Town Meeting two weeks ago – met during Monday’s Selectmen’s meeting speaking in largely conciliatory terms, having reached a rapprochement through the efforts of one of the selectmen’s former colleagues, Ralph Jones. 

According to both sides, Jones – who served as a selectman from 2008 to 2014 – has been working as a go-between to find if elements of the design the selectmen approved, known as Plan B, and the original blueprint, which won a non-binding vote at the Special Town Meeting, can be incorporated into a compromise design.

“The message I walked out [from Town Meeting] was that the Plan B we had approved fell short” in creating a safe pedestrian space for congregating, said Belmont Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady, adding that the approved plan “needs to be made more inviting.”

“It’s my hope that we can achieve a balance” between the competing plans, “to bring people together.”

The dispute has its origins in a unanimous vote by the selectmen on May 28, approving changes to the project’s design around the small green “delta” in front of the Belmont Savings Bank. Already under construction, the original model called for a new “Town Green” that would require the removal of nine parallel parking spaces and the “cut through” path between Concord Avenue and Moore Street. 

That blueprint, which accompanied the financing for the project that a Special Town Meeting approved in November 2014, was the design in the bid contract. 

The alterations, prescribed in a petition written by Washington Street’s Lydia Ogilby, restore four parking spaces in front of the bank that supporters claimed the bank’s elderly customers need. Also, the modification would also preserve a “cut through,” allowing drivers to avoid Leonard Street.

The changes eliminate the creation of a new “town green” in front of the bank. Under the altered design, the green space would remain an island surrounded by vehicle traffic and parked cars.

The Board’s action brought a swift and, at times, confrontational response from residents who sought to establish an inviting green space in Belmont’s leading business center, and from residents who felt the process in which Town Meeting Members’ mandate in November – the result of a four-year planning task – was subverted by the selectmen at a single meeting.

The culmination of the dispute came at the Special Town Meeting on Aug. 6 where a non-binding article “urging” the selectmen to revert to the original design was approved 112-102. 

Monday’s meeting was an opportunity for the selectmen to muse publically about the Town Meeting vote and begin the exercise of finding something like a middle ground. 

Bonnie Friedman, who was a leader in the opposition and in holding the Special Town Meeting, said one thing she learned from attending Town Meeting “was to really listen to the other side.”

She said talking with Jones and others “has given me a perspective on what we might be able to do to reach a compromise and come with a plan that everybody in which a lot more people can be accepting of.”

The selectmen and Friedman acknowledged Jones’ leading a mediation effort “to find that middle ground.” 

Another former selectman, Andy Rojas – a leading landscape architect – could be brought in to assist with a compromise design, said Baghdady. 

Yet it appears that, in this early stage of an understanding, the sticking point is the cut through, called “an important aspect of Plan B” by Selectman Mark Paolillo but what Friedman said “I’m not here to accept a cut through that’s in Plan B. I believe there is another way to compromise.” 

Knowing the contractor had planned to have a majority of the project’s work completed by Labor Day and there is a limited amount of dollars available for a new design, Baghdady said he hopes to have meetings completed and a new blueprint ready for public viewing within 30 to 45 days.

Special Town Meeting Passes Article Urging Return of ‘Original’ Center Design

By 2 Comments

Photo: Gi Yoon Huang, Paul Roberts, Bonnie Friedman, Jack Weis and a resident celebrating the “yes” vote at Special Town Meeting. 

Setting aside concerns it was descending a “slippery slope” of interfering with town governance, the Belmont’s Town Meeting members declared Thursday night, Aug. 6, that its opinion would be heard.

At the end of the three-and-a-half hour session, the Special Town Meeting passed a citizen’s petition, 112 to 102 (with 4 abstentions) to “urge” the Board of Selectmen to reconsider its decision on May 28 making significant changes to the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project.

Those changes included the retention of a cut through road between Concord Avenue and Moore Street and including parking spaces to a location originally set aside for the creation of a new “Town Green” in front of the Belmont Savings Bank.

“We’re all thrilled and relieved that Town Meeting voted in favor of the original plan,” said Paul Roberts, who with Bonnie Friedman, led the petition effort.

“I think this was really a vote about respecting the process in how we do big projects in town,” he said.

While the article is non-binding – and there is an indication the selectmen will not change its earlier decision when they meet on Aug. 17 – those on both sides of the debate said the vote will almost certainly affect how Town Meeting takes up capital projects from now on.

“In the future, [Town Meeting is] going to be very clear that we are only funding a particular plan and if there are any major design changes, you have to come back to Town Meeting,” said Friedman.

IMG_0015

Paul Roberts addressing Town Meeting.

With Belmont expected in the next few years encounter several large capital projects before Town Meeting and voters – including a skating rink, new high school and a Department of Public Works headquarters – the Board of Selectmen is not eager to see another confrontation with the members on design issues.

“The lesson we learned is that when we come to Town Meeting with a project, we should be as close to finalized as possible,” said Selectman Mark Paolillo.

“Appropriation is really based on a design because we are asking for the money for a specific plan. This project was 90 percent designed when the funding was attached and we kept hearing that we needed a meeting to address concerns of our seniors,” said Paolillo, who said he did not regret his vote making the late minute change to the project.

In 2014, incorporating the work of the Traffic Advisory Committee and other groups, the Board of Selectmen OK’d for the town’s Office of Community Development created plans making up the $2.8 million reconstruction project. At the Nov. 17, 2014, Special Town Meeting, the members approved by a margin of five votes a $2.8 million financing plan for the project based on the designs presented.

Several residents at the time had questions concerning the design, specifically the loss of nine existing parking spaces adjacent to the front of Belmont Savings Bank and the so-called access road running in front of the bank.

Despite a promise to have a community meeting to discuss the issues in the winter before bids were accepted, the gathering did not occur until the May 28th meeting after a petition from Washington Street’s Lydia Ogilby with 200 signatures was presented to the board asking to save a grove of trees (which had already been taken down) and the drive through.

Despite both the selectmen and public viewing the new plan that evening and with construction already underway, the Selectmen voted to re-establish the roadway and add four parallel parking spots as a courtesy to seniors.

The resulting change prompted angry supporters of the original design to circulate its petition – with nearly 400 residents – at first to secure a public meeting with the Selectmen before working towards calling a Special Town Meeting.

In a peace offering presented at the meeting, the petitioners sought to lower the temperature that the confrontation had produced in the past two months – Town Moderator Mike Widmer advised the members to “recognize and respect that we have honest difference and we honor those differences” by “taking a positive approach to our debate” – by swapping a single word from the original article, no longer “directed” but to “urged” the selectmen to reconsider its earlier vote since “nobody in this room wishes to rewrite the laws by which this town has long operated,” said Roberts.

Yet Roberts, in his opening remarks, said Town Meeting needed to be heard after weeks of laboring and lobbying to restore the original vision of the center.

“This Special Town Meeting is the last remaining option available to voters to make sure that a conversation that desperately needs to take place is not silenced,” he said.

IMG_0019

Belmont Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady.

In response, Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady reiterated the board’s contention the changes were well within its rights to alter the design as the board, under the town bylaws, has oversight control over such capital projects.

“Our decision is what we think is best for Belmont, Belmont residents, and the Center,” said Baghdady.

Rather than debate the issues of the competing plans, “I urge you to support the authority of the Board of Selectmen to do its job,” said Baghdady.

For supporters of the petitioners, the debate was fought on two levels; design and process. For Gi Yoon Huang, a mother of two young children, the original blueprint would create a green space protected from traffic in which people could use for passive activities such as eating lunch, taking a break, relaxing; a community space that draws residents into the location.

IMG_0017

Gi Yoon Huang.

“Plan A can become a vibrant and vital part of the community where people can spontaneously gather and provide energy … to the community. Plan B will be a dead space,” said Yoon Huang.

Jack Weis said while the board appears to have the authority to make the change from plan A to B, members was told at the November’s Special Town Meeting the design was “90 percent complete” with only inconsequential “nonmaterial modifications” remaining as it approved the financing.

“[T]o insert new traffic circulation and reduce the amount of green space that was a stated key objective, that now constitutes a material change,” said Weis, stating Town Meeting members would have voted that plan down back in November.

“Regardless, if you think Plan A or Plan B is better, it’s important to respect what Town Meeting approved … and we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to the plan that was the result of years of discussion and analysis as oppose to 90 minutes of discussion at a Board of Selectmen meeting,” said Weis.

IMG_0033

Town Meeting.

For those supporting the alternative, the selectmen’s acceptance of Plan B was the culmination of a promise by the Board and Town Meeting to hear and judge the concerns from the a segment of Belmont’s elderly.

Resident Joel Semuels, who serves on the Council on Aging, said the council never had the opportunity since the November meeting to “raise the facts” of safety and accessibility that the COA felt was not fully investigated by town officials and committees.

Paolillo reiterated his support for the alternative plan as “being what’s best for the overall community. It’s not where or not I agree or disagree with Town Meeting.”

Other members, while amenable to either plan, protested the notion Town Meeting has the authority to press the Selectmen to alter their opinion.

“The process for me is far more important to me than [the selected plan],” said Bob McLaughlin.

“The Board of Selectmen get elected; they do their job. If you don’t like, talk to them in April [when Town Election is held],” he said.

“If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, what’s the horse going to look like if this is the way we run our town government?” asked McLaughlin.

When the vote was taken, and the outcome revealed, the petitioners felt Town Meeting had revealed to the selectmen the direction it wants the reconstruction to proceed.

“We wanted nothing more than to show that major changes can not be done without Town Meeting oversight,” said Roberts.

Opinion: An Unfair Re-Do, Part Two

By 3 Comments

Photo: 

This is the second half of an opinion article by Kevin Cunningham. The first half was published on Tuesday, Aug. 4.

“The traffic problem is solved”

It’s worth pointing out one other line of revisionist argument that is creeping into the discussion, this time on what to many is the most critical issue; the problem of traffic.

At the precinct meeting in September where the board laid out the general outlines of what would be voted in November, the very first comment from the public was a tempered lament that the proposed Belmont Center proposal did not in fact address the most visible problem of the Center; the tremendous traffic issue. Yes, the proposed project beautified the Center, but it left unsettled the commuter problem.

In response, Glenn Clancy, director of Belmont’s Community Development Office, noted that many efforts had been made to consider various options to address the issue, but he had to concede that traffic would still be an issue. Thus even from the outset it was understood that the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project did not solve the most significant problem the Center had: the massive traffic. Indeed, this was the grounds for many to not support it at Town Meeting, “You’re spending lots of money, but you’re not even solving the chief problem?”

Of course, the Center plan does address some of the traffic issues in a variety of ways: it does introduce traffic calming and makes certain intersections more rational, so the safety will be greatly improved. That is certainly a worthy and important goal. Nevertheless, the plan does not eliminate or reduce the traffic itself. Indeed, it eliminated some of the relief valves for traffic, in favor of safety. That’s understandable, but the traffic will still build up.

Thus, when the board voted on the revisions in May, it was not merely trying to address the parking issues of the elderly. It was even more significantly attempting to strike a compromise that did something to mitigate the unresolved traffic issue. It is an important issue, it affects all of us, and it is unfortunate that is it difficult to resolve. But the board took a stab at giving a balanced response to the issue.

Today, you will hear that the Center plan actually does address the traffic issue fully. If you dig under the rhetoric for this, however, you will basically see the following argument: “The Center redesign takes a major thoroughfare, which up to now has been shared by motorists and pedestrians, and reorients it toward pedestrians; drivers will consequently learn to stay away from this route because it will be even less favorable to them than before. Problem solved.”

This logic – “build it and they will not come” – may or may not be rational. But it certainly has not been established to be a majority opinion, nor even an idea that Town Meeting knew when it voted on funding the project. Rather, people understood, and were explicitly told, that the traffic problem was not solved by the proposed plan. To assert now that it was solved all along, and that everyone agrees with the logic and consequences of the traffic suppression approach, is simply unfounded.

“They are suppressing democracy”

One last point bears noting. The most recent line of argument that might be proffered by proponents of the new action, a line that will be emotionally convincing to many citizens but is still untrue, is that the board has now added insult to injury by pushing away properly organized groups of citizens and stifled their free expression. The board, it is claimed, has muzzled the citizens, called the cops on them, and perversely not listened to reason when it ought to have.

The board has done nothing of the kind. People intruded in venues that were not appropriate for raising their points, and the elected body properly said they were out of order. Now, there is indeed a problem in town about lack of venues in which to raise process points. But that doesn’t justify packing a hall with an intense and angry group of people and insist, against procedure, your right to be heard.

It is worth noting that, just because someone feels oppressed, it does not automatically follow that there is an actually an oppressor, especially an evil oppressor that is persistently acting to thwart their good intentions.

But all this obscures the key point. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the board is now stifling free speech. What has that to do with the Belmont Center decision? That decision was made last Spring, not this summer. The oppression being asserted now could not possibly have influenced the vote in Spring. It didn’t exist then. Certainly many people feel like their voices are being suppressed now, but it is not logically connected to the vote in May.

Now, some will argue that it is relevant, because they believe it shows some ongoing pattern of the Selectmen to skirt democracy. But here again, the proper followup to such an observation is to make the case to the proper authorities and get censure of the Board, not to create an elaborate proxy in the form of a Town Meeting vote on A versus B.

A fair vote is now impossible

In fact, this all inescapably clouds the vote at Town Meeting. Are we voting on A versus B, or instead indirectly defending Town Meeting’s prerogative? Or is all this really a referendum about whether the Board of Selectmen proceeded improperly, or, even further afield, whether they are proceeding oppressively now? What exactly is this vote about?

Unfortunately, this use of the vote as an unstated proxy for the latter cases, or for the earlier accusations of collusion, renders it now impossible for the Town Meeting vote to be conducted fairly. Nevermind that the actual intent of the vote is unclear. In any town where the publicity about a legal case has been too much filled with unsubstantiated rumors and accusations, our legal system has taken the prudent course of moving the trial to another district. The jury, we realize, could not help but be biased, even if they maintained and believed otherwise. We all know there is wisdom in that.

Town Meeting is in such a case now: we believe we can be fair, but too much has been said, too much emotional baggage is now being carried, so it is not actually possible to be free of it. Even if all the facts were reported accurately in Town Meeting, we are no longer in a position to view them with an unbiased eye. Too much has happened.

An unfair do-over

Where does all this leave us?

If you review the changing history of the case for the Belmont Center action, you will see only one constant: the proponents were unsatisfied with the results of a certain decision, and they want it changed.

It is entirely understandable that the proponents of the new action were disappointed by the Board vote. There are always those who don’t like the way some vote or other turns out. But to convert this into a moral crusade, vilifying fellow citizens and uncivilly interrupting the public business of elected officials as a means to reverse a perfectly legal decision, is entirely uncalled for, and has even made it impossible for them to get the result they want in an unbiased way. They may get the result, but it would not be fairly obtained.

The truth in this case is simple: the current campaign is simply an unfair attempt at a re-do of a vote that was properly made, a vote that was made with input from citizens and deliberation by thoughtful elected officials, and a vote that is not Town Meeting’s province to make in the first place nor in its jurisdiction to overturn. In support of this inappropriate re-do, proponents have put forth a variety of arguments, some unconvincing as best, some libelous, and many simply false, as to why it is appropriate to hold a new vote on the topic. But Town Meeting has no authority, moral or legal, to instruct the board on this matter, and all the hullaballoo is simply an unfair attempt to change history.

A do-over is improper, if it were even possible to conduct fairly – which it is not – and therefore should not proceed.

Kevin Cunningham

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4