2017 Belmont Town Meeting, Night 3 LIVE

By 2 Comments

Photo: Town Moderator and Town Clerk before tonight’s meeting/

Belmont’s annual Town Meeting reconvenes tonight, Monday, May 8 at 7 p.m. to take up the last warrant articles remaining in the meeting’s first segment.

Those articles are:

  • Article 8: Refer to a study committee the article that would increase the membership of the Board of Selectmen from three to five members.
  • Article 9: Empower the Board of Selectmen to consider all options for waste management in the town, including waste metering such as pay-as-you-throw systems, as part of their ongoing role as financial managers of the town.
  • Article 10: Welcoming Town designation. 

There has been a bit of an exciting time before the meeting as the two sides of the Article 10 issue are holding signs and asking members to vote for or vote down the now controversial non-binding measure which would reiterate the town’s police department policies of not requesting the immigration status of residents who they come in contact with. 

Unofficial word is that Article 10 will be given its day, Wednesday, to be debated. Seems fair.

Mike Widmer, Town Moderator, said the hope was that most people want to see the three articles are completed tonight – to cheers – but with Article 10 be started by 9:30 p.m.

We’ll see.

Jay Marcotte, the DPW director, is giving an update on the town’s solid waste/recycling program. Here is the push for automated trash collection which many towns have transitioned, such as Wakefield. “We are doing well” as a town with unrestricted on the curb collection. There are three collection options before the town: traditional, automated or pay as you throw. Lots of pros and cons. Did you know that a typical Belmont household creates nearly 1,500 lbs of trash annually? Pay as you throw is the best method to limit trash. But there are a lot of cons. The Selectmen will decide the best option by July 2018, a year away.

The first article of the night: Article 8, that called for expanding the number of selectmen from three to five. This is not about expanding the number but purely on the formation of a committee to discuss the matter. The original article is not being debated because it was putting the cart before the horse; the state legislature needs to approve the addition of the members of the board before it can be voted on by the Town Meeting. The original article was a citizen’s petition by Selectman Jim Williams. 

Williams said the benefits of a larger board is now needed because the town is much bigger – $160 million and 460 employees – than a three-member board can accomplish. Williams said the Open Meeting Law limits any discussion on any sort without a formal meeting. “It’s simply not enough time” to do what needs to be done. It’s been proposed in 2002, 2000 and 1967 and many similar-sized towns like Arlington, Lexington and Wellesley have five. Five selectmen will allow for two selectmen to deliberate, speak and communicate. Williams said a five-member board is just more efficient. While there will not be a vote tonight, Williams is seeking a 13-member study board to make a recommendation and a possible town meeting vote in 2018.

Williams created an ad hoc committee with many prominent Town Meeting members to discuss the issue. Jack Weis, Pct. 1, and a member of the ad hoc committee said you would vote on the 

Steve Rosales, Pct. 8, and former Selectman said he wants to nip this in the bud and wants to vote no on the study. He said don’t fix it if it’s not broken. If you have a five-member board, it is a greater likelihood that deals will be done in secret and there will be no debate.

AnnMarie Mahoney, Pct. 8, and former Selectman said there is a concern that a larger board could be done to circumvent the Open Meeting Law. 

The question “Why now?” Williams said he wants to look forward and sees a lot of risks facing Belmont in the next three to five year from a new High School, community path, and his favorite concern, OPEB retirement funding. It’s just more efficient. Claus Becker, Pct. 5, said any company the size of the town is never run by a three-member board. 

Claus Becker, Pct. 5, said any company the size of the town is never run by a three-member board. 

Reed Bundy, Pct. 1, asked if the board could just meet and discuss the issues at any time, which the selectmen said that is an option right now.

The vote has been moved, and the ending of debate was approved. The vote to establish a committee creation is passed 192-67. 

Up now is Article 9, the Pay As You Throw discussion which is not about the issue itself, but about encouraging the selectmen to consider it as a viable option in future contracts.

Kim Slack said he submitted his citizen’s petition as an environmentalist and a fiscal conservative, giving the selectmen more options and leave a cleaner planet.

The issue before the town is the 1990 override which paid for curbside trash collection. And since then, the town has not considered “all options.” Slack said PAYT would be more environmentally sensible and could cut costs which help local financial challenges. Only 11 percent of municipalities have what Slack called “free” curbside collection, a phrase that did not go over well with quite a few members. 

Pat Brusch, Pct. 2, was on the ballot question committee back in 1989, which supported the 1990 override for the collection of solid waste (for $2,094,946) said she has concerns this vote will have a detrimental impact on voters when they are asked to finance other important projects around town.

The debate is a great give and takes between competing concerns: the environment and keeping a promise to past voters. There are 14 members waiting to speak on the issue. 

The question is moved and debate has been terminated 242-22.

And now the motion on article 9: it passes 162-99. It is non-binding.

Now Article 10, Ann Mahon’s citizen’s petition to make Belmont a Welcoming Town. After reading the article, Mahon explains what the article will do including reaffirming current Belmont Police Dept. practices and reaffirm our values as a cohesive communityh that welcomes and accepts without prejudice those of all races, religions and nationalities. 

“Do not listen to rumors or heresay,” said Mahon. It does not make Belmont a sanctuary town or ask Belmont Police not to cooperate with ICE. It will continue Belmont Police Department practices 

“This is a way to unite the town with its police department,” said John Roberts who is speaking  for the article.

About 20 members waiting in line to make comments. 

Three Articles Remain In 1st Half of 2017 Town Meeting

By 2 Comments

Photo: Belmont Town Meeting.

Seven down, three to go as Belmont’s annual Town Meeting convenes tonight, Monday, May 8 at 7 p.m. to take up the last warrant articles remaining in the meeting’s first segment.

Town Meeting is traditionally broken up into two segments, A  and B with the first sessions dealing with non-financial articles – except for the five projects being presented by the Community Preservation Committee.egment B sessions will deal with the financial articles and will be held in June.

Segment B sessions will deal with the financial articles and will be held in June.

The final trio of non-budgetary legislative actions Town Meeting will debate and vote on are:

  • Article 8: Refer to a study committee the article that would increase the membership of the Board of Selectmen from three to five members.
  • Article 9: Empower the Board of Selectmen to consider all options for waste management in the town, including waste metering such as pay-as-you-throw systems, as part of their ongoing role as financial managers of the town.
  • Article 10: Welcoming Town designation. 

Reduced Price Rain Barrels Now On Sale Thru Sustainable Belmont

By 1 Comment

Photo: The rain barrels come in three suburban colors.

It’s Rain Barrel time in Belmont

Again this year, Sustainable Belmont is partnering with the Great American Rain Barrel Company of Hyde Park, to offer rain barrels to residents at nearly half the retail cost.

“Last summer’s drought was a wake up call that every drop of water is precious. We’re offering this program to help manage rising water costs and save vegetation from drought conditions,” says Amanda Mujica, a volunteer with Sustainable Belmont.

“Rain barrels are an effective way to collect and save water… and plants love unchlorinated rain water.” Barrels are easily connected to the downspouts and fill quickly, resulting in a significant source of water that homeowners could be tapping into for free.

Residents that use a rain barrel collect as much as 1,500 gallons in a season. This will save existing or new landscaping when a dry spell hits and supplement outdoor water usage, which spikes during the growing season. 

Just keeping a small 10’ x 10’ garden irrigated during the summer months can mean using up to 1,700 gallons of water. Based on the average roof size, more than two 60 gallon rain barrels would fill for every fifth of the inch of rainfall. The Great American Rain Barrel Company recommends one barrel for every 100 square feet garden. Multiple barrels are easily linked together for additional collection and storage.

The barrels are offered in three colors; Forest Green, Earth Brown or Nantucket Gray at the low cost of $69; 40 percent off the retail price of $119. Belmont buyers benefit from an additional savings of $10 because Sustainable Belmont volunteers are handling the distribution. The barrels are made from recycled food shipping containers.

Mujica will be at the Belmont Farmer’s Markets on June 8 and 15 with a Rain Barrel and Composter display. If you’re curious and want to learn more about integrating rain barrels and composters into your gardening, stop by. The Belmont Farmer’s Market is from 2 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Belmont Center in the Clafin Municipal Parking Lot.

To take advantage of this offer please visit the company’s website, click on “Community Programs” and look for “Belmont” or contact via email info@tgarb.com, or phone 800-251-2352.

Prepaid barrels will be available for pick up on Saturday, June 24, from 9 a.m. to 11:00pm at the Belmont DPW parking Lot, C Street.

Commentary: Differing, Compelling Views on the ‘Welcoming Town’ Article

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Jim Williams (left), Dan Vernick
Editor’s note: Below is an email conversation between Board of Selectmen Chair Jim Williams and Town Meeting Member Daniel Vernick. The exchange began when Williams wrote to the community why and how he would vote on Article 10, the citizen’s petition by Anne Mahon on making Belmont a “Welcoming Community.” Vernick responded to Williams statement which the Selectmen reciprocated. In a time in our country when contrasting political views are likely to result in flaming, profane comments, the viewpoints by each Town Meeting member were treated with respect and understanding.
Jim Williams
To the community:
The BOS  voted favorable 2-1 on Article 10 at the May 1, Board of Selectmen Open Meeting with myself casting the minority unfavorable vote. So, I’ve decided to report my vote and the reasons for it in writing in advance of the report of the BOS vote at Town Meeting for public consideration:
  1. I respect Anne Mahon and the idea that the Town should express its compassion on the  topic.
  2. I understand (and cheer) her right to put forth a citizen’s petition for consideration by Town Meeting.
  3. I understand what’s proposed is not what is widely understood to be a sanctuary city or even a welcoming city as both of these  can include resolutions concerning local enforcement of federal immigration laws, 
  4. I have a deep appreciation for  Anne and the Police Department Command for the work done by the public safety statements rendering them accurately factual, thus neutral politically.

However,

  1. Belmont has already declared itself a “welcoming community” in its Town of Belmont Comprehensive Plan 2010-2020 pps. 1, 5, and 22.
  2. Also, the Vision 21 Implementation Committee report dated April 2015 mentions the idea of welcoming 80 times in the document albeit many instances relate to the surveys reported therein.  
  3. The Town conducts its affairs within the rule of law, and the BOS conducts the general direction and management of the property and affairs of the Town not otherwise provided for law and the Town bylaws for the common good. 
  4. The inclusion of a reference to public safety procedures can create for some a false impression that Belmont has declared itself a sanctuary or welcoming city or town or has joined a network of sanctuary or welcoming towns that,  in fact,  is not proposed by the motion or article.
Therefore, 
  • I am unfavorable to the motion as proposed given its redundancy, the need for all parties and agents of the Town to conduct  Town affairs within the rule of law and the common good, and the probability of a false public impression about the intent of the motion of approved.
Instead, 
  • I would propose that the BOS  commits to Town Meeting that it will charge the Vision 21 Committee with the task of updating a 2020-30  Comprehensive Plan for the Town.
Best regards,
Jim Williams
Chairman, Board of Selectmen

 

From Daniel Vernick

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the explanation – a couple of points in response:

  • Anne Mahon is one member of a broad coalition of Belmontians pushing for this Welcoming Town resolution. It was written not only by Anne but also with the help of many other TMMs, as well as the Police Department, Belmont Against Racism, and others. You make many points about how you “respect Anne Mahon” – but this resolution is not about Anne Mahon. It’s about making sure that Belmont’s immigrant community feels safe and welcome, and there is a broad coalition of Belmontians from numerous groups across town that have been working on this. 
  • You mention the town needing to conduct itself “within the rule of law.” Not only is Article 10 within the rule of law, it simply reaffirms the standard BPD policy that has been in place for years. Passage will not change any policy but will send a message that everyone is welcome in Belmont regardless of race, ethnicity, or immigration status. 
  • I am confused about your claim that this creates a false impression that Belmont has declared itself a sanctuary town. I will be the first to tell you that Article 10 (unfortunately) does not come anywhere near making Belmont a sanctuary town. But it’s a step in the right direction. 
  • The Vision 21 report, as you mentioned, was in 2015 – that’s before the Trump administration’s immigration orders have caused widespread fear among immigrants and people of color, as well as a sharp rise in hate speech and hate crimes. This resolution is needed to publicly reaffirm Belmont’s policies and values so that no one who lives or works in our community has to feel unsafe or fearful.
  • Similar resolutions have been passed by many other towns, including nearby Waltham, Concord, Newton, and Arlington. Most of those resolutions have been far more comprehensive than Belmont’s resolution. Every nearby city and town that has recently considered a similar resolution have passed it. If the resolution fails, Belmont will stand out as the only town in Greater Boston to reject a Welcoming Town resolution. 
  • I am confused by this statement: “I am unfavorable to the motion as proposed given its redundancy, the need by all parties and agents of the Town to conduct Town affairs within the rule of law and common good, and the probability  of a  public false impression about the intent of the motion of approved.” The exact opposite is true; this is absolutely within the rule of law, is essential to the common good, and the impression it gives to the public is that Belmont welcomes immigrants and that no one should have to live in fear. I am confused as to what you are referring to in these sentences.
  • I wish that we had a far more comprehensive resolution that would have made Belmont a full-fledged sanctuary town, but unfortunately, that is not the case – this resolution is purely symbolic and does not change any existing policies. It does, however, send a message to immigrants who live or work in Belmont that their community supports them and that they are welcome regardless of race, ethnicity, or immigration status.
This is not and should not be a partisan issue – all sides should agree on this resolution, which is extremely watered down and purely symbolic, as simply a statement of Belmont’s values. 
I am happy to discuss this further. I hope that you understand how detrimental the failure of this resolution would be to the emotional wellbeing of our immigrants, people of color, Muslim community (for instance, Muslim students being bullied at Chenery), and to our reputation as a town. I welcome you to reconsider your position.
Best,
Daniel Vernick
TMM Precinct 1
Jim Williams
Hi Daniel
Thanks for your email. At least,  you care enough to engage. Otherwise, here is my initial reaction to your comments: 

  1. Amongst many other things, I am a Belmontonian as well, and I don’t agree with the motion for the reasons I’ve put forth in writing.
  2. It is always possible that well-intentioned people can be working on bad policy,  yet that fact doesn’t necessarily validate a particular point of view as history has shown over and over again. 
  3. Article 10 did not start out within the rule of law from what I know of it. The Police Command and Selectman Mark Palilllo worked with Anne (who we all know which is important to understand)  to bring the motion into a neutral political space for the common good and so the motion could pass without rancor.  
  4. Great strategy to enable all to vote unanimously in favor except that it will be predictably understood by the wider public to support policies it doesn’t support which does not serve   Belmont’s common good which I have sworn to uphold.
  5. Hence, my opinion and the elephant question of “why do it” at all?.
As for the rest of your commentary, you simply say because you disagree I should agree with you. I’m going to need more than your word on that. I think we need to have more dialogue when we can if you like as I always stand to be corrected. 
Best, 
Jim 

Belmont Day School, Residents Waiting on Dover Decision

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Residents at the Planning Board meeting Tuesday night.

The Board of Selectmen’s Room in Belmont’s Town Hall was stuffed to the rafters with residents Tuesday night, May 2 as the Planning Board reopened the public hearing to hear from both sides of a now controversial development planned at a private school on Belmont Hill.

By the end of the 90-minute meeting, it was apparent the Planning Board’s next step rests on a legal interpretation by Belmont Town Counsel George Hall whether the Belmont Day School could be required to undertake a pair of potentially time-consuming and expensive independent reviews of the impact the proposed develop could have on local traffic levels and stormwater.

The Belmont Planning Board.

It is an action the Day School’s legal representative considers mute due to the state General Law 40a (3) (2) – known as the Dover Amendment – protecting education and religious entities from land use regulations; the same legal standard used more than two decades ago to build another contentious project in town, the Boston LDS Temple.

“We need to bear in mind the Dover Amendment, which means in situations like this, where there is a proposal to build a structure for an educational purpose, we are limited to imposing reasonable regulations,” said Acting Planning Board Chair Barbara Fiacco of the construction of an indoor gym/classroom space and a new road/driveway at the Day School, a private kindergarten/elementary/middle school located off Concord Avenue on Day School Lane.

The Day School has reported it would want construction on the project to begin in the fall of 2017 with a September 2018 opening.

Speaking of the Day School, Kelly Durfee Cardoza from Avalon Consulting opened the meeting telling the board the school had met with abutters and carefully attempted to address some issues immediately such as moving a dumpster away from the border with the town’s cemetery. 

Kelly Durfee Cardoza, Avalon Consulting

Cardoza also told the board the school would introduce a Transportation Demand Plan which when implemented would use a series of actions such as car pooling, traffic monitoring, establishing a commuter ride system and stagger arrival and departures to reduce the level of traffic to and from the school.

The two camps opposing the Day School’s plans – reportedly the two groups have no intention of joining their efforts due to longstanding animosity among certain neighbors – believe the construction of what is being dubbed “The Barn” will increase enrollment and subsequently bring additional vehicle traffic onto the section of Concord Avenue which residents note is jammed during the morning and evening rush to work and home.

Opponents also believe a new access road/driveway into the school off Concord Avenue will lead to unsafe driving conditions, possible drainage issues and disturb those visiting the town’s Highland Cemetery.

One group has hired an independent traffic consultant, Robert Vanasse of Vanasse & Associates, Inc. who told the board the Day School’s traffic study is insufficient in several areas of concern, including not mentioning the weekday half-mile queue of cars on Concord Avenue in the morning and afternoon, the causes of accidents in the vicinity of the school, and the high rate of speed along the roadway.

Robert Vanasse, Vanasse & Associates

Vanasse said while he was not opposed to having the new roadway to the school to be used for “emergencies only,” adding a new intersection on busy Concord Avenue.

Also, the town’s Cemetery Commission has written to the Planning Board on its concerns about stormwater, traffic and the loss of what many are calling “the decorum” of those who purchased plots in the graveyard as traffic on the new roadway will be mere feet from the site.

Stormwater management was also questioned whether the current infrastructure would be able to support a new road which would direct rainwater and snow runoff. 

But standing in the opponent’s attempts to restrict the effects of the new construction is how wide the Dover Amendment protects the Day School’s rights.

“The board should think carefully about whether they have the authority to request a peer review for the traffic study both under your site plan review bylaw and under the Dover Amendment” as both only allows for a review of “internal” traffic – within the school property – and not offsite matters, said Robinson & Cole’s Katherine Bailey.

Robinson & Cole’s Katherine Bailey

After a limited number of residents spoke mostly in favor of the school’s expansion, the Planning Board brought their own set of questions, including from the Board’s Raffi Manjikian who quired whether the school had an operation maintenance plan to ensure the previous material under the roadway will not fail after a limited number of years. 

Many of the questions posed by the Planning Board were seeking assurances from the Day School it would have plans in place and programs ready to meet all contingency issues regarding the main concerns of traffic, stormwater and being neighborly to the town’s cemetery. 

While the issue of requiring a third party peer review remained only conjecture at the meeting, Board member Joseph DeStefano asked the Day School to voluntarily submit to the second audit “as being part of this community” rather than seek legal advice from the town counsel.

When Fiacco said she wanted to hear from Hall on the board’s right to require the review, Bailey asked, “in the interest of timeliness” if the Day School could join in that discussion outside the public meeting.

If Hall decided a peer review is warranted, Bailey asked if the review could be started before the next public meeting “so to keep the process moving.” Fiacco tentatively agreed to the request if a Planning Board representative is present. 

Since the Planning Board determined at the beginning of the meeting it would not make a final decision; the next public meeting will be reopened on Tuesday, May 23.

Sports : Girls’ Rugby First-Ever Varsity Home Game a Memorable Tie

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Georgia Parsons of Belmont High’s Girls’ Rugby squad.

Kate McCabe could finally smile only after the game recalling the final seconds of the historic first ever girls rugby match at Belmont High School.

A fullback from Algonquin Regional High School had turned the corner beyond the Belmont defenders and was heading full bore for the Marauders’ end zone, looking to break a tie game with a stunning run to glory.

But there would be no miracle finish for the T-Hawks as a pair of Marauders had the angle on the back and pushed her out of bounds 20 meters short of the try line, ending the game.

“That was close!” said McCabe, the Belmont High School social studies teacher and Belmont’s girls’ rugby head coach since the team’s inception as a club sport in 2015.

On a misty late evening under the lights of Harris Field, Belmont High and Algonquin Regional settled for a 12-12 tie in the first-ever MIAA sanctioned girls’ rugby contest in Belmont, serving as the inaugural varsity match at the school.

The MIAA – Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association – is the governing body that supervises high school sports in the state. Before this season, rugby was club sport at schools and regionally. 

“I am so proud of the girls tonight,” said McCabe, who started four years at Boston University and was on the Boston Women’s Rugby Club before entering coaching. Despite missing two flybacks and another starter, “[Belmont] played an outstanding game despite the rain” which caused a number of miscues (for both teams) that hampered the game.

This first season of girls rugby under the guise of the MIAA sees three schools – Algonquin Regional High School (Southboro and Northboro), Lincoln-Sudbury Regional and Belmont – with past playing experience competing on the varsity level as other schools, such as Newton North, are creating their own programs.

Algonquin is the most experienced of the playing team, having won the Massachusetts Youth Rugby Organization’s State championship from 2011 to 2014 while Lincoln-Sudbury was victorious in 2016, beating Belmont in the semi-finals.

This year, Belmont defeated Lincoln-Sudbury in its first-ever MIAA girls game and after the tie with Algonquin, the T-Hawks (which defeated L-S, 5-0, in its first go around) and Marauders are both standing at 1-0-1.

The match itself was a bruising affair with Belmont’s strength from the ruck and maul pressured Algonquin, which countered with sharp passing and skillful tackling – led by player of the match ARHS’s senior Sam Dickie – especially close to the try (goal) line. Three times Belmont was within 10 meters of scoring a try (worth five points) but were stopped by Algonquin’s solid defense or by mistakes on their part.

Algonquin’s pressure offense, using quick passes and counter running, earned it the first two tries of the match, building a 12-0 lead. Belmont cut the lead to 12-5 when senior Georgia Parsons – a three-year varsity goalie for the girls’ soccer team – bulldozed her way for a try after the 35 minute half had expired. (In rugby, a half or the game only ends when the ball is kicked, or a player is dragged out-of-bounds.)

The second half saw Algonquin being to feel the effects of Belmont’s punishing runs into the center and experience in the scrum, ultimately resulting in sophomore Claire Martin crossing the line for Belmont’s second try. Parson’s secured the two-point conversion with a well-struck kick through the center of the uprights.

Both teams had their chances in the final 20 minutes with Belmont coming ever so close in the last two minutes only to see a wet ball bound away within 10 meters of the try line in the final two minutes.

As with any rugby match, there was the rash of knock-on injuries, a bloody nose, a painful dislocated finger and the need for many bags of ice. But after the match, it was also time for players who are teammates on club sports to exchange greetings, coaches to discuss the game and the sharing of pizza. 

2017 Belmont Town Meeting, Night 1 LIVE

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Town Meeting

And welcome to the first night of the 2017 annual Belmont Town Meeting being held in the Belmont High School auditorium, Monday, on May Day.

I have been told by Town Clerk Ellen Cushman that tonight’s meeting will attempt to vote on the first six articles in the warrant. That will include setting a standard 25 mph speed limit throughout town (article 3), revamp the Demolition Delay Bylaw (Article 4), update and codify a “signs” bylaw (Article 5) and accepting a temporary moratorium on the establishment of retail marijuana stores in town (article 6).

7:05 p.m.: Town Moderator Mike Widmer calls the meeting to order. The invocation is read by Pastor Cheryl Minor of All Saints Church.Boy Scouts Troops 304 and 377 along with Girl Scouts from Troops 62578, 79207, 85470 and 72490 present the flag while Girl Scouty Clarice O’Neil, a Butler 2nd grader, leads the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance. The national anthem is sung by the Belmont High School senior A Capella.

7:22 p.m.: The new and re-elected town meeting members are sworn in by Town Clerk Cushman.

The Town Meeting honors the long-serving members. Mark D’Andrea (44 years) gives some practical advice to Town Meeting: Speak up when you come to the microphone.

7:28 p.m. A wonderful appreciation of Ruth Kaplan, who died at 98 in February.

7:30 p.m.: Town Moderator Mike Widmer said that there is “significant confusion” about the difference between an article and the motion. He also spoke about “scope” of an article under debate. It will be important when getting to articles such as pay as you throw and the Welcoming Town amendment. It will not be a debate about the Trump administration and its policies or be making any conjecture on the impact on the town’s finances by passing the article, he said. 

7:40 p.m.: And we are underway: Article 3 which is the speed limit article. Should Belmont reduce the “statutory speed limit” in thickly settled areas (basically all but three stretches or road in Belmont) or where there are special speed regulation; about 12 streets such as Goden, Lexington, School, and Clifton, to 25 mph.

Discussion: (lots of members already in line on this one) Joel Semuels, Pct. 6, worries that a minor traffic ticket could cause a $200 surcharge for six years on their insurance. Glenn Clancy, director of Office of Community Development, basically admits that the police has a great deal of “discretion” on giving tickets, admitting that if you are going just a bit over the speed limit, it’s unlikely you’ll be getting a ticket.

Bob McLaughlin, Pct. 2, (a proud owner of a Porsche) said he wished he could travel faster than second gear. He said he didn’t believe raising five mph isn’t that much safer. “What governs best, governs least.”

Rachel Berger, Pct. 2, while supporting the amendment, believes that it is enforcement not speed limit that will make roads safer.

Sue Bass, Pct. 3, agrees that it’s is enforcement that is important, especially signs that tell the speed limit.  She would also like to see more raised crosswalks.

Clancy said many communities are taking action in reducing speed limits which he believes will “recondition” how drivers throughout the region to drive at lower speeds, and if it takes ten years, will make roads safer.

Brooke McKenna, Pct 5, said lowering the speed limit may “not be a perfect solution,” – there could be more enforcement – but it is the first step towards safer roads. Slower speeds would result in higher survivability rates to victims of car accidents 

Paul Roberts, Pct. 8, said the way roads are used have changed – more bikes and pedestrians sharing the road – and smartphones putting more cut-through traffic onto local roads. “Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.”

Corinne Olmsted. Pct. 1, also brings up the issue of cut-through traffic that is sent through Belmont via traffic-avoidance software. Reducing the speed limit could make the town less attractive to those drivers.

Jack Weis, Pct. 1, said he’s opposing the amendment because it’s a “one size fits all” solution which doesn’t work on the major “commuter” roads that crisscross the town. If drivers don’t believe the speed is “practical” they will see how much above the limit they can go.

The question has been moved! One hour of debate. Whew!

And for some reason the vote was not registered, which had one member quip, “It’s the Russians.” 

So we go to a voice vote. It’s almost quaint to hear the yeas and nays. And the ayes have it. The speed limit in Belmont will soon be 25 mph with a few exceptions.

Next up, the Demolition Delay Bylaw amendment. Widmer reminds anyone who has a financial interest in a property impacted by the bylaw must mention it.

The bylaw, which originally passed in 2013, is being renewed due to a sunset clause. It only applies  to a limit number (182) of specific buildings, there is an appeals process, and it does not prevent demolitions, said Lauren Meier, the co-chair of the Historic District Commission. The most significant change is increasing the term of the delay from 6 to 12 months. “It’s not an undue financial burden,” Meier said.

You can read about the 2017 bylaw here.The Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board gave unanimous support to the renewal of the bylaw.

Some real opposition to the amendment by several members – many who opposed the bylaw in 2013 – who are aspirated by increasing to 12 months the delay.

The complains includes a restraint of private property rights, using the bylaw as a “lever” against a homeowner, there is a financial penalty on the property and, really, if some developer wants to tear down a historic building, he’ll just thumb their nose at the town, six months vs. 12 months. Meier said the bylaw isn’t perfect but it does give public notice and provides the community a way to have a voice on these issues. Good give and take on an issue that effects only two percent of the housing stock.

The motion called and here is the vote: 183 to 72 in favor – the bylaw passes.

9:55 p.m.: Now the “signs” amendment, sponsored by the Planning Board. Barbara Fiacco, vice chair of the Planning Board, presents the amendments briefly to the old bylaw which are 30 years old. Standing signs would be reduced to being no more than five feet high; window signs would be reduced from 50 percent to 20 percent of the total window area; there was no regulations and awnings and sandwich board sign; temporary signs will be reduced for 60 days; flashing signs and string of lights would be prohibited and you will have to maintain your sign. Non-commercial signs would be allowed in all zoning areas just to keep in within a recent Supreme Court ruling. What’s non-commercial? Schools, non-profits, religious 

Small business owners and some members feel some of the restrictions – strings of lights, a sign saying “Drive slow” – are nitpicking. What about those commercial signs for landscaping firms in the strip of land between the sidewalk and the street – known as the town’s right of way? It now has to be removed after 90 days or after the work is done, whatever is shorter. 

Vince Stanton, Pct. 3, then Bob McGaw, Pct. 1 and later Jack Weis, Pct. 1, were acting as copyeditors to the article, changing the wording for clarity.

What about the farmers market? The smaller ones in people’s yards have to be taken away after 90 days (it’s currently 100 days). 

Finally the questions end and the vote takes place. And it’s a big “Yes” margin, 186 – 46.

The meeting is now adjourned until Wednesday, May 3. 

Belmont’s Annual Town Meeting Convenes Tonight at 7 PM

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Town Meeting.
 
Legislative democracy is back in session tonight as Belmont’s annual Town Meeting convenes tonight, Monday, May 1 at 7 p.m. in the Belmont High School Auditorium.
 
Town Meeting will be broken up into two segments, A  and B. Segment A sessions will deal with the non-financial articles – except for the five projects being presented by the Community Preservation Committee – and will be held in May; Segment B sessions will deal with the financial articles and will be held in June.
This year, all sessions of Town Meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the High School Auditorium.
 
Tonight, Monday, May 1, Town Meeting will tackle Articles 1-7 in the Town Meeting Warrant. They include:
  • Article 1: Reports (there will be no reports this evening.)
  • Article 2: Authorize the Board of Selectmen to represent the town’s legal interests.
  • Article 3: That the Town accepts the provisions of Chapter 90, section 17C of the Massachusetts General Laws that reduces the speed limit to 25 mph in thickly settled areas of town. 
  • Article 4: A vote to amend the General Bylaws pertaining to Section
    60-320, ‘Demolition Delay’, proposed by the Historic District Commmision.
  • Article 5: Amend the Zoning By-Law pertaining to Sections 1.4, ‘Definitions and Abbreviations’ and 5.2, ‘Signs.’ 
  • Article 6: Amend the Zoning By-Law pertaining to inserting a new Section 9, ‘Marijuana Establishment Temporary Moratorium.’ 
  • Article 7: Individual votes on the five projects put forward by the Community Preservation Committee. 
  • Article 8: Refer to a study committee the article that would increase the membership of the Board of Selectmen from three to five members.
  • Article 9: Empower the Board of Selectmen to consider all options for waste management in the town, including waste metering such as pay-as-you-throw systems, as part of their ongoing role as financial managers of the town.
  • Article 10: Welcoming Town designation. 

On Wednesday, May 3, the annual meeting will close temporarily to allow for a Special Town Meeting to convene. The Special Town Meeting will have two articles requesting the state legislature to enact legislation to limit the transfer of licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Sports Update: Softball Earns Big Win, Baseball Rolls Along

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Senior Bryan Goodwin driving in a run vs. Winchester.

After a rough start, Belmont High Softball got off the snide and earned a 9-4 home victory over Winchester High at the Concord Avenue Field on Friday, April 28. The girls are now sporting a 1-4 record but with progress coming on a daily basis under first-year coach Kristin Ciappina.

• How wet has it been? So dank that despite a day of drying, Branden Grant Field, the home of the undefeated Belmont High Baseball Marauders remained soaked requiring the game played Thursday, April 27 against Winchester to be switched to the JV/Freshman field adjacent Harris Field. The nearness to the ball field of the school’s all-purpose turf field caused a few nervous moments as about four foul balls landed into the midst of the Girls’ Lacrosse contest vs. Woburn. Yikes.

But the return to the old field did not faze the Belmont Nine as they came away with a comfortable 7-1 victory to extend the team’s opening season win streak to six games (6-0). Southpaw whiz kid Nate Espelin (2-0) pitched five strong innings, striking out nine while surrendering a double in the fourth.

Junior reliever Jake Pollock gave up an earned run in the sixth, escaping further damage by an outstanding 6-3-2 relay out as senior centerfielder Bryan Goodwin fielded a single up the middle and fired a bullet to junior first base Ryan Noone who turned and delivered a strike to senior catcher Cal Christofori to nail the runner who took off from second at the plate.

Offensively, Belmont continues to put runs on the imaginary scoreboard, seeing four runs score on four solid hits in the fourth, finishing with eight knocks led by Connor Dacey’s two leadoff doubles and a pair of runs scored. 

While liking to see the bats come alive this year, Head Coach Joe Brown is more impressed with the team’s excellent pitching.

“Our pitchers have given up five runs in six games,” observed Brown. “You’re going to win a lot of games if you do that.” 

Next up for the team will be a match of undefeateds Monday; the first of two games this season with last year’s Middlesex League champion Reading Memorial which comes into the game unbeaten at 5-0. The game is scheduled for May Day at 3:45 p.m.

From the Herald

From the Boston Herald’s MIAA Top 25 Baseball Rankings – Week Four (4/26/17)

Let’s take a look at our most recent high school baseball poll as we approach the beginning of May.

#4 Belmont High School – (5-0) – Led by Cal Christofori the Marauders are off to a hot start and look to prove to be one of the best teams in the state.

So Long, Cushing Village; Say Hello to ‘The Bradford’

By 5 Comments

Photo: Otto Weiss, the “Bradford’s” project manager.

A sly smile crossed Bill Lovett’s face like he had a secret he wanted so badly to tell.

So he did.

Lovett, a senior development manager at Toll’s Apartment Living which owns the 168,000 sq.-ft. apartment/retail/parking complex set to be built in the heart of Belmont’s Cushing Square told the 40 residents who flocked to the Belmont Gallery of Art on Thursday afternoon, April 27, came to hear the latest on the project, that a significant change had occurred in the development.

The name. Goodbye to Cushing Village, the moniker was first given the project nearly a decade ago by the project’s initial development team.

Welcome to Belmont: “The Bradford.”

“Like the pear or tree,” said Lovett, likely referring to the Bradford pear tree, the ornamental fruit tree known for its snowy white spring blossoms and sweet smell that lasts for a quite a long time.

“Hold your applause,” said Lovett, as the residents reacted rather nonplus to the announcement. 

Oh well.

Lovett, who was joined in the meeting by Otto Weiss, the project manager, and architect Peter Quinn, said the name change was proposed by the project’s marketing team to provide a new image to the project. 

Apparently, the marketing team didn’t know of the tree’s increasingly horrific reputation among garden club enthusiasts, city planners, and arborists, all who have increasingly come to hate the Bradford with a passion. As the New York Times noted last year, “Today, the Bradford pear may be the most despised tree in this part of the world.”

Apart from the name change, most of the news that came from the Toll Brothers team were updates on the construction of the three building project and minor alterations to the development.

Regarding development, Weiss told the audience that the excavation of the municipal parking lot adjacent to Starbucks and Trapelo Road would begin Monday, May 1 and last three to four weeks.

After the digging is finished, laying of the foundation for the retail/residential building known as the Winslow will begin. Simultaneously, the evacuation of the former CVS/First National site (dubbed the Hyland) will commence, said Weiss. That location will house a portion of the parking garage.

Currently, the project area, which has the appearance of a strip mine, is undergoing “dewatering” as the ground water is being decontaminated on the site before being released into the public system. The soil is also being treated and being sent to offsite locations. 

Once all the necessary regulatory “is are dotted and ts crossed” construction will begin in earnest with the Winslow being completed and ready for both residential and commercial occupancy in July/August of 2018. It will also be the new home of Starbucks, the only retail lease the firm has signed so far.

The Hyland is scheduled to be open in December 2018, with the centrally located Pomona building, which includes 20,000 sq.-ft. of retail, opening in June 2019. The development is expected to be fully occupied and all detail work finished by the first day of 2020.

(As an aside, Lovett said other than the Winslow, the names of the two other buildings could be given new names. “We didn’t want to call them Building 1,2,3. But there could be changes in Phase 2.”)

In other news concerning the Bradford:

  • The number of apartment units in the three buildings has been decreased from 115 to 112, and the total number of bedrooms have fallen by ten as the units have slightly increased in size in some locations. 
  • Changes have been made to exterior design features on each of the buildings – larger, more prominent windows, new material, removal of some architectural segments – “but we have not increased the size or scope of the building as noted in the Special Permit,” said Lovett.
  • The rooftop area on the Winslow has been removed, leaving only the Hyland to have a common area on its roof for residents. But don’t expect to see wild, 20-somethings partying hardy on the deck as “those elements” do “in Alewife or East Cambridge” noted Lovett. “It’s going to be a different feel” at the Bradford, “a more refined” lifestyle from a “different demographic.” 
  • The rents for units have not been set “as it will adjust to the market” with the opening of each building. 
  • Parking for construction workers will be provided off-site.
  • While it’s a certainty that Trapelo Road will need to be dug up to supply utilities to the project, all repair work to the roadway will be extensive including milling and resurfacing an entire segment of the street. 
  • When asked if bars or other alcohol-related businesses could go into the 34,000 sq.-ft. of retail space, Lovett said commercial areas are condominiums like the rental units and “we’re very restrictive on retail uses.” 
  • Yes, dogs and cats will be welcomed in Cushing Vil …. oops, The Bradford.