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

Seeking Added Revenue, Moozy’s Expands to Breakfast Hours

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Moozy’s in Belmont. 

When it’s July and the temperatures reach 90 degrees, owning a successful ice cream store like Moozy’s at the intersection of Trapelo and Belmont is the easiest business around, said owner Dante Muzzioli. All he  has to do is open the doors and the crowds follow.

But in February, when record winter snow levels made finding his front door a challenge, Moozy’s’ business literally freezes in place.

“It’s a ghost town when the weather gets cold. It gets really rough for six months,” said Muzzioli. “It’s a nice spot and it looks beautiful but I’m still trying to recoup the money I lost over the winter.”

In an attempt to expand his revenue base, Muzzioli came before the Belmont Board of Selectmen on Monday, July 27, seeking to expand the hours on his Common Victualler license to allow the popular ice cream shop to compete in the breakfast trade.

The former long-time head coach of the Belmont High School boys ice hockey team – in May, Muzzioli was inducted into the Massachusetts State Hockey Coaches Association’s Hall of Fame – said while he has been keeping Moozy’s – located at 2 Trapelo Rd. – afloat by transferring funds from his other businesses, “it really has to stand on its own” to continue in operation over the long term. 

“It’s all about survival and that place can not survive without a change,” said Muzzioli.

Muzzioli, who runs a successful landscaping firm and other businesses, was seeking to open the store beginning at 6 a.m. during the week to compete with nearby eateries and coffee shops such as Starbucks, Aram’s Cafe and Teddy’s Kitchen, each in nearby Cushing Square. 

The breakfast trade would include coffees, bagels, pastries and plates for sit-down service, serving residents on their way to work – the store is located on an inbound stop for the bus to Harvard Square – and those seeking a weekend morning meal. 

“I think the town needs a nice high-end breakfast place,” he said. 

Yet those living in the residential neighborhoods across Trapelo Road worried that new hours would exacerbate parking issues on their streets in addition to an earlier start to commerce in the area. 

Oak Avenue’s Rita Butzer Carpenter said there would not be enough parking at the store – there is no lot parking for the store – to accommodate a high-volume coffee shop-type operation, suggesting language be included with any approval that would prevent the store from accepting a Starbucks “kiosk” selling that brand of coffee at the location. 

Carpenter’s neighbor Dr. David Alper said a 6 a.m. start would be “egregious” to the neighbors especially on the weekend. He sought a compromise in which the store would open at 7 a.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. on the weekend.

Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady, who said that he would hate to see the town possibly loss an independent store and risk seeing a chain coffee shop take its place, voted with his two fellow members to allow the store to open at 6 a.m. during the work week and 7 a.m. on weekend.

Muzzioli said the vote will allow him to see the operation moving into the future on a more stable financial footing. 

“This will help because now we have something that isn’t weather impacted. Breakfast is everyday,” said Muzzioli.

Foodie’s Snags Final Beer/Wine License for Belmont Center Store

By 1 Comment

Photo: Victor Cruz, Jr. speaking before the Belmont Board of Selectmen.

Nearly nine months before it opens its doors to residents, the owner of the supermarket anchoring the renovated Macy’s space in Belmont Center is the holder of the town’s final beer and wine license as the Belmont Board of Selectmen awarded the permit to Foodie’s Market.

Victor Cruz, Jr., told the Belmontonian today’s customers anticipate well-run markets to stock beer and wine as a matter of course.

“Like I said to the selectmen, people have become accustomed to expecting it at their local market,” said Cruz, after the board voted unanimously to award the Boston-based independent chain the license. 

It was this “new reality” among its customers that brought Cruz to the Selectmen on Monday, July 27, seeking the final of the four beer and wine licenses Town Meeting approved and the legislature OK’d for retail establishments three years ago. 

“We feel its critical for us to have since other” markets also sell beer and wine including Star Market on Mt. Auburn Street and Trader Joe’s on Memorial Drive in Cambridge. 

Cruz said his family’s fourth operation – to be located in 15,000 sq.-ft. on the lower level of the renovated site of the Macy’s department store at 75 Leonard St. – will be located in the lower portion of the remodeled site. 

The beer and wine section will take up four percent of space near the customer service area in the back of the store, “so we can keep a close eye on the site.” 

He noted that he will sign a “no craft beer” agreement in the lease in which Foodie’s will not sell the same beverages currently being sold by Craft Beer Celler, the artisanal beer store down the block. 

“Our intent is not to hurt anyone, but rather drive business of the center of Belmont rather than away from it,” said Cruz, noting the Cellar’s owners, Kate Baker and Suzanne Schalow, approve of the store coming to the center. Cruz will also speak with Carolyn Kemp, co-owner of Vintages in Belmont. 

Diane Malcolmson of Pinehurst Road said it is important for town leaders and residents remember that retail owners such as Kemp “that took a chance on this town five years ago when we needed that alcohol revenue.”

“We just expect you to be a good neighbor and encourage you to speak to all the businesses” in the center, said Malcolmson.

No Deal as Selectmen Await Financing Proof From Cushing Village Developer

By Leave a Comment

Photo: An earlier version of the building that will be built at the community 

Not yet.

Despite taking out demolition permits and hiring a Needham-based firm to take down the abandoned buildings, the developer of the proposed Cushing Village multi-use complex still doesn’t hold the deed for the commuter parking lot at Williston and Trapelo roads of the $80 million project as the Belmont Board of Selectmen has yet to see a finalized financial package they can be comfortable.

“The Board is not prepared to vote on the sale of the parking lot at this time,” said Belmont Town Administrator David Kale told the Belmontonian, after the Selectmen met with Town Counsel George Hall for nearly an hour in executive session. 

Currently, a partnership of original developer Chris Starr and Urban Spaces of Cambridge are attempting to put together a financing package for the development which will bring 115 units, 38,000 sq.-ft. retail space and 235 parking spaces to three parcels at the corner of Common Street and Trapelo Road in the heart of Cushing Village. 

The price tag for the parking lot adjacent Starbucks – set six years ago when the parcel went out to bid  – is $850,000; along with fees and permits, the final price is closer to $1.3 million.

While unable to go into detail on a possible agreement, the leader of the Selectmen said any sale will coincide with a financial package.

“We are going to proceed with the closing of the parking with financing in place. That’s the only prudent way we can move forward,” said Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady, after the meeting.

Baghdady said in addition to the financing package, there is a land development agreement in which the development team must follow to the letter the 26-page special permit. Starr will also convey to town use 50 parking spaces in the underground parking garage and the creation of a parking management agreement as part of the purchase-and-sale agreement. 

“What I have been told is that those documents are not in final form,” said Baghdady. 

While the development partners have yet to have its financial “Ps and Qs” together, it has moved forward by paying for and pulling a demolition permit, hired a firm and has agreed to ground rules on behavior at the site while deconstruction is underway. 

But Kale said the taking of a permit does not indicate the development team will soon possess a building permit.

“The take out these permits at their own risk,” said Kale.

Due to a “lack of information” during the two years since the special permit was issued on July 29, 2013, the town’s Community Development Office has created a page on its website that will be the library for permits and documents related to demolition and construction. 

“As we reach these milestones, we will post all the supporting information that was required that allowed us to give us the approvals for those particular items,” said Glenn Clancy, the Community Development director. 

Belmont Selectmen OK Special Town Meeting Date

By 1 Comment

Photo: Belmont Center reconstruction underway.

It’s official: the Belmont Board of Selectmen approved a Special Town Meeting for Thursday, Aug. 6, location to be determined (although strong hints have been dropped that it will likely be held in the air conditioned comfort of the Chenery Middle School.)

The votes, held at an early morning meeting at Town Hall on Thursday, July 16, was a foregone conclusion as the petitioners submitted more than 200 certified signatures from registered voters.

“We had no choice but to certify the warrant,” said Mark Paolillo, who along with Chair Sami Baghdady, voted to open and close the warrant, and to approve the language of the motion.

(Selectman Jim Williams is currently on vacation and could not cast a vote).

“It’s unfortunate that we as a community should be celebrating the revitalization of Belmont Center … it just seems that this is now an issue that has divided our town,” said Paolillo. 

The article calls for the selectmen to reverse its vote on May 28 approving significant changes to the design of the Belmont Center Reconstruction Project, the $2.8 million plan to improve traffic flow and upgrade the town’s main business district.

While construction on the site had begun, the Selectmen voted unanimously to approve changes submitted in a separate citizen’s petition by Lydia Ogilby of Washington Street who called for trees to be protected (they had been removed weeks before) and to restore parking and a cut through from Concord Avenue from Moore Street adjacent to the Belmont Savings Bank. 

The petitioners who called the Special Town Meeting said the Selectmen’s overstep its authority since the town’s legislative body approved a financial plan for the project at another Special Town Meeting last November with the original design blueprint – which included removing angled parking and the bypass which creating a larger town “Green” at the location. 

According to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman, under the town’s bylaws, amendments to the motion can be submitted to her office at least three business days before the Special meeting, which will be Monday, Aug. 3, at 4 p.m. 

A quorum of 101 Town Meeting members will need to show up for the up or down majority vote to take place. The vote is non-binding as Town Counsel George Hall considers the motion as “instructional,” in which Town Meeting is giving their opinion to the Selectmen, said Cushman.   

While voting to approve the meeting, Paolillo said “it is really unfortunate that [a Special Town Meeting] is taking place. It’s just a waste of money” – the Aug. 6 gathering will cost the town $5,000 – and it was a shame that a compromise plan could not have been agreed to by all sides of the issue.

But Baghdady noted that the May 28 vote itself was a compromise in which the board voted to approve design changes to assist elderly residents and ease traffic congestion.

“How do you compromise a compromise?” said Baghdady. 

Paolillo said the one point that bothers him is the process question, “but as far as changing the plan, I’m not accommodating that.” 

Baghdady said notice of the May 28 meeting was sent to Town Meeting members and the public via social media and email. 

“What more process could we have done?” he said.

Next week, the board will discuss and then vote whether to seek “favorable action” on the article.

Special Town Meeting Set for Thursday, August 6

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Center under construction. 

The Special Town Meeting called by residents seeking to reverse last-minute changes to the $2.8 million Belmont Center Reconstruction Project will take place on Thursday, Aug. 6, according to a notice released on Monday, July 13.

On Thursday, July 16 at 8 a.m., the Belmont Board of Selectmen will meet at Town Hall to vote to open and close the warrant before voting on the date. 

Still up in the air is the meeting’s location. Town Meetings are held in the auditoriums of either Belmont High School or the Chenery Middle School. Last week, Town Clerk Ellen Cushman said she would seek to hold the assembly at the Chenery as it has air conditioning.

Town Meeting’s traditional start time is 7 p.m.

The Special Town Meeting was called after a group of residents presented a citizen’s petition calling for the return of the project’s original design which included a prominent Town “Green” and removal of the cut through between Moore Street and Concord Avenue after the Selectmen voted on May 28 to keep the bypath and locate four parallel parking spot in front of the Belmont Savings Bank.  

The Selectmen will take the non-binding vote “under advisement” and decide at a public meeting whether to follow Town Meeting’s “instruction” or set it aside.

Lots of Openings on Town Committees and Groups; Are You Interested?

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The seal of Belmont.

If you have some time on your hand and wish to contribute your talents to help run the town you live in, the Belmont Board of Selectmen has begun its annual committee appointment process.

Beginning in July, 2015, the Selectmen will be making appointments to fill terms set to expire this year and those that have been left vacant by resignations. Although an uncompensated position, the Selectmen places a high value on committee contributions, and recognizes the critical role that committees play in shaping Belmont’s future.

The Board is looking for Belmont residents with a variety of talents and backgrounds who are willing to make the commitment to serving on a committee. Residents with no past committee service, past committee members and current committee members interested in re-appointment are all encouraged to apply.

The list of Committees that have vacancies or members with terms expiring in 2015 include:

  • Cable Television Advisory Committee
  • Community Preservation Committee
  • Conservation Commission
  • Council on Aging
  • Cultural Council
  • Disability Access Commission
  • Economic Development Advisory Committee
  • Education Scholarship Committee
  • Energy Committee
  • Historic District Commission
  • Housing Trust
  • Human Rights Commission
  • Municipal Light Advisory Board
  • Permanent Audit Committee
  • Planning Board
  • Property and Casualty Insurance Advisory Committee
  • Recreation Commission
  • Registrars Of Voters
  • Shade Tree Committee
  • Traffic Advisory Committee
  • Vision 21 Implementation Committee
  • Water Advisory Board
  • Zoning Board of Appeals

The number of appointments to be made, time commitment needed, and preferred qualifications varies from committee to committee. To be considered for appointment to any committees appointed by the Board of Selectmen, please fill out a Community Volunteer Interest Form that may be obtained from the Selectmen’s Office or on the town website.

Submit completed interest forms along with any other supporting documentation to the Office of the Board of Selectmen located in Town Hall, or via e-mail to selectmen@belmont-ma.gov

Completed interest forms will be kept on file for a year. Note that applying to be a committee member is not a guarantee of appointment. The Board of Selectmen will make all appointments in public meetings this summer.

Questions about committees or this appointment process may be addressed to Public Information Specialist Bob Reardon Jr. in the Office of the Board of Selectmen.

Town Green Supporters Ponder Special TM After Raucous Selectmen Standoff

By 2 Comments

Photo: Belmont Center Reconstruction project. 

[Correction: The latest date for a Town Meeting to take place if 200 signatures were submitted to the Town Clerk’s office on Friday, June 26, would be Aug. 10.]

It’s been some time since the Belmont Police has been called to a public meeting. But a man in blue stood outside Town Hall’s Board of Selectmen’s Room – more amused than austere – as a large contingency of supporters of a town green adjacent to the Belmont Savings Bank and traffic calming measures as part of the Belmont Center Reconstruction project to present their complaints in the form of a petition – with more than 500 signatures in support – that would reverse last-minute changes to the projects blueprint approved by the Selectmen in late May.

Supporters of the original plan said they will make plans in the next few days on rounding up 200 signatures from registered voters to call a Special Town Meeting to resolve the issue.

“According to Town Clerk Ellen Cushman, if the petition with the required signatures where received by her office by Friday, June 26, the latest a Special Town Meeting could take place would be Aug. 10.”

At Monday’s meeting, shouts of “shame” accompanied by derisive catcalls and moans were heard as the chance for cooperation on the issue quickly struck the political shallows as neither side wished to surrender what they preserved as being the high ground.

After an initial statement calling for a return to what is being called design “Plan A,” the petition’s standard-bearer Paul Roberts asked that the board “hear those who wish to speak for and against” the proposed return to the original project plan.

Chair Sami Baghdady countered by saying what Robert’s statement “sums up pretty well” those who support the petition’s language. Providing additional comments, Selectman Jim Williams objected to Robert’s statement as being disrespectful to the board, charging that the selectmen did respect Town Meeting support for the project even as they voted to alter the project in May.

The town’s legislative body approved the project’s funding in November at a Special Town Meeting.  

View the first 20 minute of the Selectmen’s June 22 meeting soon at the Belmont Media Center. 

The board also noted that the green space adjacent to the bank would be 43 percent larger under the Board of Selectmen supported Plan B than in the original plan. Shortly after the Selectmen’s response, the board ended the comment section without acting on the complaint 0r whether it would acknowledge those who opposed the changes.

When Roberts questioned ending the comment period, he was told he was out of order, resulting in a verbal brouhaha with a police officer showing up in the background. 

Speaking after the meeting, Roberts said he would be contacting supporters on gathering the required signatures to call for a Special Town Meeting to resolve the issue once and for all. 

The changes were prompted by a petition with 200 signatures from 96-year-old Lydia Ogilby, a voter and Town Meeting Member from Precinct 1. Her minimal request – “Petition to reconsider the reconstruction of the green space in the upcoming Belmont Centre project. Please save the trees in the delta and across Concord Avenue. Also save the pass through in front of the bank” – resulted in the reintroduction of parking and the side street connecting Moore Street and Concord Avenue.

Yet Roberts said what’s at issue isn’t how large of a green space will ultimately be placed along Leonard Street. For him and others, the critical question is process.

“If this precedence stands, then what Town Meeting is saying is that the Selectmen can, at any point in every capital project up to the ribbon cutting, has the authority to redraw the project to their liking,” said Roberts.

“It could be based on personal preference, on a petition from a friend or who they talked to over the weekend at a barbecue over the weekend,” he said.

“It’s a complete undermining of a ground up, grass root transparent process in which people can comment on things, have them implemented and the final result is what the community wants,” he said.

Due to Scheduling Kerfuffle, Belmont Center Petition Delivered Through the E-Mail

By 1 Comment

Photo: Parking in front of the Belmont Savings Bank is at issue in the petition delivered to the Board of Selectmen Monday.

Paul Roberts is not just frustrated with what he perceives as the Board of Selectmen overreaching its authority in altering the design plans for the $2.8 million Belmont Center Reconstruction Project even as construction had begun, he also had to deal with faulty dates on the town’s web page.

“They have inaccurate, outdated info on the Board of Selectmen’s web page,” said Roberts, who was prepared on Monday, June 15, to submit his petition asking the board to restore the Project’s original design which features a “town lawn” in front of the main branch of Belmont Savings Bank on Leonard Street.

The only problem was that the Board of Selectmen were not holding office hours at 6 p.m. as its page stated on the Belmont-ma.gov site.

“It’s too damn hard to figure out what[’s] happening and when in this town,” said Roberts, a Cross Street resident and a Town Meeting Member from Precinct 8.

So rather than presenting his Petition with 430 signatures from Belmont residents and business owners calling for the restoration of the original design, Roberts put the package into a PDF file and zipped it over to the three selectmen via e-mail.

You can see the petitions at the end of the article.

Roberts promises he’ll hand deliver a printed copy to the board at the Selectmen’s scheduled Monday, June 22 meeting.

As for the Selectmen, while one acknowledged receiving the package, its contents were yet to be read.

“[Roberts] did e-mail us something, but I have not seen the petition. I just got it,” said Selectman Chair Sami Baghdady at another public meeting Monday night. 

What is facing the selectmen is a growing number of residents angered by the board’s vote to approve two major changes to the approved Reconstruction Project’s design – now known as Plan A – proposed by a small faction of residents led by long-time homeowner Lydia Ogilby.

The revised design, Plan B, restores the current layout of parking in front of the bank as well as continue a cut through between Moore Street and Concord Avenue. Those changes would effectively end the hope of many of establishing a town green (or lawn) into Belmont Center as a central gathering area.

Roberts and those who signed the petition are asking for the board “to respectfully reverse a decision you made at a special hearing in May that installed a new, heretofore unseen and untested plan created at the last minute by your office in the place of Plan A.”

Roberts has joined others who believe the original designed was vetted and approved by a Special Town Meeting in November 2014 which approved the $2.8 million project’s financing.

“Reinstating Plan A will respect the work of the Traffic Advisory Committee, the wishes of Town Meeting and – as this petition suggests – the wishes of the voting public,” says Roberts letter.

The petition’s signatories represent “the full spectrum of Belmont politics” including Town Meeting members, the Warrant Committee, and the Traffic Advisory Committee which created the program. It also includes some pointed quotes from neighbors.

“Plan A” was the approved plan. It was an excellent plan. The last-minute substitution of another plan, which bypassed a multi-year town-wide process, by a small group to effectively undo the good works done by many people over many years is a shameful act and should not be allowed to happen.” said resident Andrew Bennett.

Roberts hopes the Board of Selectmen will conclude that since any further changes to the project’s blueprint could actually delay the reconstruction schedule. the board will open discussion on his petition at 7 p.m. at Monday’s meeting “so that we may resolve this issue as soon as possible.”

Town Center Green Space Signatures – NonResidents

Town Center Green Space Signatures – Residents

Last-Second Fiddling Reverts Belmont Center ‘Green’ Back to an Island

By 12 Comments

Photo: The “access” road in front on Belmont Savings Bank.

The planning took four year to finalize, the blueprints were drawn, the contractors hired and the work underway.

And for those who worked to bring the Belmont Center Reconstruction project to fruition, it appeared that all that was left was for a ribbon cutting late in the year to celebrate the upgrade to the roadway, new sidewalks and other amenities that is expected to last for the next half century.

But being Belmont, the final word is never the last say. 

Despite a half decade of public meetings led by the Belmont Traffic Advisory Committee and with workers tearing up curbing and cutting trees beginning last week, the Belmont Board of Selectmen called a special meeting for Thursday, May 28 at the Beech Street Center to hear from some of the apparently 200 residents who decided the last second was an appropriate time to be heard about the entire project.

Led by 96-year-old Lydia Phippen Ogilby of Washington Street who took pencil to paper to call for the meeting to hear from the signatories – many who are north of Belmont’s median age of 42 – who felt passed over on the opportunity to express their concerns on the finished design, submitted their own “Plan B” revision. 

Saying the reconstruction will be with the town for more than a half century, Selectmen Chair Sami Baghdady said aspects of the project “raised so much concern” that despite the lateness of the challenge, the meeting was warranted in an effort to find a “revenue neutral way” to find a compromise.

In fact, the opponents were apparently perturbed with just a pair of the design’s details; the removal of about 10 diagonal parking spaces located in front of the Belmont Savings Bank headquarters at 2 Leonard St., and the related one-way “access” road – actually the currently parking area – connecting Moore Street with Concord Avenue.

Under the TAC design plans approved by d the Board of Selectmen and reviewed by a Special Town Meeting in November when it approved a funding package, the parking spaces and road were removed to create a “Town Green” in front of the bank, with benches and a flag pole that would attract residents and visitors to a central landmark Belmont Center. 

“It provides Belmont a ‘green’ which many towns have but we have been lacking,” Glenn Clancy – as director of the Community Development Office is overseeing the project for the town – told the Belmontonian before the meeting. 

In the current plan, known as Plan A at the meeting, there would be three parking spaces next to the existing exit from the bank’s covered parking garage with additional parking spaces created near by along Concord Avenue near Town Hall. 

While the meeting was established to hear from critics, most speakers expressing opinions were supportive of the current design.

“It would be a big mistake to change the new design,” said former State Rep. and Selectman Anne Paulsen, saying the “town green” concept would make the site “a friendlier space” while keeping parking and the access road will result in the space that “only a few people” would want to spend time.

Paul Rickter of Cross Street approved eliminating the cut-through from Moore to Concord as it would make the center “a little more pedestrian-friendly.”

While supporters were , the tardy opponents were not satisfied with the design as it would effect how they conduct business especially at Belmont Savings’ main branch. 

The second design – supported by the petitioners – would revert the Green back to a tear-shaped island surrounded by traffic and parking while keeping the “short cut” from Moore to Concord, which several residents note is a convenience so not having to enter onto Leonard Street to turn right onto Concord. 

Joel Semuels of Bellevue Road, who is on the board for the town’s Council on Aging, said reduction of parking spaces would be a detriment to the “25 percent of residents over 60” (Editor’s note: the 2010 US Census data indicated that 16 percent of Belmont residents are 65 years old and older) seeking to do business at the bank. Semuels approved of four parallel spaces situated before the bank’s garage exit in the Plan B scheme.

Scott Tellier, who with his father owns commercial property in Belmont Center, said preserving parking spaces – even three or four that will be “lost” in the entire project – was paramount for stores and restaurants to retain customers seeking to shop in the commercial hub.

“We want to see parking,” said Tellier.

Bob Mahoney, the president and CEO of Belmont Savings, said he could support the changes begin proposed although he did want to promote the green space adjacent the bank. He noted even under Plan B, the green will increase by approximately 40 percent from its present footprint.

The dilatory nature of the opponent’s complaints, as well as their insistence their concerns were not incorporated into the reconstruction’s plans, did not sit well with Linda Nickens, TAC chair who pointedly told the few opponents in attendance the committee didn’t sit “in a dark room” developing the project, which, she added, was viewed favorably by the selectmen and the business community last year.

“They did like it,” said Nickens.

With numerous public meeting TAC set aside to hear from all sides of the measure, the opponents “never came to complain” or be part of the process, said Nickens, calling the belated campaign to alter the plans “disappointing.”

As a supporter of the current plan, Rickter said his objection with the meeting is that “this change was made at the eleventh hour with no clear notice that the Selectmen would be making such a substantial change to the design.”

“We don’t know if they are representative of the town as a whole or merely a very vocal minority; the process never allowed us to find that out,” he told the Belmontonian.

Given the last say, Ogilby – whose family first ventured into what is now Belmont in the 1600s – expressed her feelings in a labyrinthine statement, in which she complimented Clancy, talked about the news about town, how she likes the traffic roundabout in front of her house at the corner of Grove and Washington, and all the “nice” residents near her 19th-century farm house for signing the “papers.” 

In the end, the selectmen unanimously voted to support Plan B which the opponents championed. Baghdady, who earlier called the changes “tweaking” he current plan, hailed the changes as “part of the democratic process.” Even Nickens agreed that “the people have spoken” on the matter.