Town Meeting Puts Kibosh On McMansions Passing Limits On Residential Homes

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Peg Callanan speaking before Town Meeting on Monday. Steve Pinkerton is behind Callahan.

Late in 2014, Sargent Road’s Peg Callanan and Stephen Pinkerton of Dalton Road decided something had to be done to put a halt the sudden explosion of oversized structures – dubbed McMansions – being built in their neighborhood of single-family homes adjacent to the Grove Street Playground.

Nearly 18 months since they formed the Belmont Citizens for Responsible Zoning (BCRZ) to bring attention to what they called “a threat to the character of our community,” Callanan and Pinkerton were present to see their concerns answered when Belmont Town Meeting on Monday, June 6, overwhelmingly approved major changes to the zoning bylaw that places permanent restrictions on the size of new construction or major renovations in seven of Belmont’s eight precincts.

“The vote shows that you can change what some said was too complicated to do,” said Callanan, after the 195-32 vote to give its blessing to Article 6 which sets limits to the height and space around new homes.

The vote on the article – which took 15 minutes – came after nearly three hours of debate on four amendments that would allow the construction of a second floor by right, the placement of HVAC units and design issues. Each was defeated handily with the exception of the final amendment on another HVAC-related issue voted down by a margin of two votes, 114-112. 

While the overall article had overwhelming support, many Town Meeting members were dreading the prospect of up to nine amendments which would take time to debate and vote. Advantageously, many of the pending amendments were withdrawn before the meeting, and when Charles Hamann, chair of the Bylaw Review Committee removed three more at the last minute, he received a kiss in gratitude from Planning Board Chair Liz Allison.

See how the new bylaw effects the size and mass of single-family homes going forward in the SR-C district.

Among the new rules are:

  • An applicant that demolishes a house to build a larger home, and on a different foot print, or increases the original gross floor area by more than 30 percent during a renovation will now require obtaining a Special Permit.
  • New homes will be limited in height to 30 feet from the midpoint of the roof line and 34 feet at its highest.
  • The front set back must be the average footage of the abutting houses.
What the new bylaw does is close “two critical loop-holes” in town zoning, said Pinkerton: the lack of a total height limit and the absence of a Special Permit requirement for significant work in residential neighborhoods. 

The new bylaw expands on a one-year moratorium approved at last year’s Town Meeting placing restrictions on the total height (at 32 feet) on any new or reconstructed single-family dwelling unit in a small section of Precinct 7 that saw a rapid increase in demolitions and the construction of mega-homes.

Since that vote, the BCRZ began working with the town’s Planning Board to develop Zoning By-Law amendments to “help preserve the neighborhood’s distinctive character” by mitigating the effects of oversized construction throughout the Single Residence C Zoning District, according to a committee letter to Town Meeting.

“We pledged last year that we would work collaboratively, and that started right away and it just never stopped,” Callahan told the Belmontonian after the meeting.

“We believe that Article 6 is the best solution … that will balance the interests of today’s homeowners for larger homes while respecting the rights of its existing owners,” Callanan told Town Meeting before the vote. 

Pinkerton told Town Meeting members who were thinking of opposing the article as it does not allow “as right” the construction of a second floor or it appears to grants more power to the Planning Board, “not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

“Come to the Planning Board and work with them and with us. This has been a remarkable collaborative effort from all kinds of people,” said Pinkerton. 

There was some opposition, on forcing design parameters being placed on homeowners and builders, and whether new residents would be heard by the Planning Board, yet those issues were brushed aside allow the article to pass comfortably.

LIVE: Special Town Meeting, May 4

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Proponents of the Minuteman Tech School funding out in force.

7:30 p.m.: It’s time to convene the Special Town Meeting in which members will discuss and vote on three articles:

  1. funding for a new Minuteman Regional High School,
  2. conveying $1.75 million from the sale of Woodfall Road to the Belmont High School Building Committee for a feasibility study
  3. Take $1.45 million out of free cash to pay for six modular classrooms to be placed at the Chenery.

But first recognition of Richard Betts’ contribution to the town.

The $144 million Minuteman funding project is not finding any love among town committees: voted unfavorably by the Board of Selectmen, Warrant Committee, and the Capital Budget Committee. 

The articles will be heard in reverse order with Minuteman to end the night. 

7:42 p.m.: The proclamation for Dick Betts, “Mr. Belmont.”Passionate of Belmont’s history, author of several books on this town, and Town Engineer. 

7:47 p.m.: Article 3 is up, the modular classrooms. Selectmen, Warrant, and Capital Budget all unanimously approves the transfer. Superintendent John Phelan explains that enrollment continues to skyrocket, and it was decided that modular will relieve pressure on the school where rooms not built for learning are being used. 

Mike Lebinson, chair of the Warrant Committee, gives a talk about free cash. The town should have on hand about three percent of the last year’s budget or about $3 million. The town has about $7.6 million of free cash as of July 1, 15. So in June during the budget Town Meeting, the town is looking to spend $1.45 million on the modular, $1.7  on fiscal ’17 budget allocation and $317,000 for OPEB, which leaves $4.1 million, well above the recommended amount. 

Chris Doyle, Pct. 1, with nothing said about a permanent fix, are modular a long-range solution. Phelan said with the building of the new high school; it will give an opportunity to find a long-term solution throughout the system. David Alper, Pct. 6, said this will not increase the number of teachers, just make learning easier.

The vote is taken and … the article passes 237-5.

8:02 p.m.: Now Article 2: This will give the $1.75 million that came from the sale of town-owned property off Woodfall Road to the BHS Building Committee so it can have a feasibility study performed. Selectmen, Warrant, and Capital Budget all voted unanimously to pass the article. William Lovallo, the chair of the BHSBC, gives an overview of what the committee will be doing over the next two years. The amendment, by Selectmen Jim Williams, would change the funding source to the Kendall Insurance Fund. Williams said there were three options to fund the feasibility study with a short-term bond, free cash or the Kendall fund which is from the insurance settlement from the Kendall school. The Woodfall Road money would go into free cash. Williams said the article was only presented to allow Town Meeting a choice what to use.

Mark Paolillo, selectman chair, said the $1.75 million is one-time money which would have been placed into a Capital Stabilization Fund, which supports capital needs of four major capital needs: the new High School, DPW, Police, and Library. Back a year ago, Ann Marie Mahoney, chair of the CBC, said the Woodfall Road money would be going into these funds anyway. Paul Roberts, Pct. 1, said since there are two accounts performing the same task, why not take funds from Kendall fund and place it in the Capital Stabilization Fund. Paolillo likes that idea. 

Back a year ago, Ann Marie Mahoney, chair of the CBC, said the Woodfall Road money would be going into these funds anyway. Paul Roberts, Pct. 1, said since there are two accounts performing the same task, why not take funds from Kendall fund and place it in the Capital Stabilization Fund. Paolillo likes that idea. 

Paul Roberts, Pct. 1, said since two accounts are performing the same task, why not take funds from Kendall fund and place it in the Capital Stabilization Fund. Paolillo likes that idea.

Julie Crockett, Pct. 5, said why not pay for the feasibility study with the Kendall fund and then place the Woodfall Road money into the Debt Stabilization Fund. 

Williams once again reiterates that we wanted to give the Town Meeting the chance to decide and place the Woodfall Road money into free cash. 

Jack Weis, Pct. 1, said by placing in the money into free cash, it preserves how the fund is used in an aggregate way.

The vote of the amendment by Williams is taken, and it is defeated 176 to 76. 

Back to the main motion. Chris Doyle, Pct. 1, asks what is the scope of the feasibility study; can it include eighth graders in a new school. Phelan said the study would have the opportunity to ask for several architectural plans that will ask those questions.

The vote of the main motion takes place and passes, 237-7.

Now the Minuteman vote: buckle up and let’s go. 

Jack Weis, Pct. 1, who is Belmont’s rep on the Minuteman School Committee, said he will make a neutral presentation “so you can decide.” Weis said the reason for a new building is due to age – it was built in 1974 – and overuse. The condition of the building could force the school to lose its accreditation. Since 2010, the school has been undergoing a feasibility study since 2010. One thing that it will not do is build for less than 600 students. While Weis believes that the building is too big, “but I get tripped up” when asking himself “will be better off if we vote no.” The better path, said Weis, is to seek approval of a new school. 

“But this is the wrong school at the wrong time” said Mark Paolillo. “The building is too big.” 

“I just can’t get to yes with a $144 million building for 630 students,” said Paolillo, who suggested taking “option 2” which is taking a second look at the project.

Bob McLaughlin, Pct 2, makes a passionate plea against the new school, noting that there are too many questions left unanswered.

Now the questions and opinions from the members. 

With many members expressing a great amount of frustration with the process and the school’s administration, Belmont Special Town Meeting votes down the $144 million funding plan for a new Minuteman Career and Technical High School building, 81-141.

 

What’s In Store For Tonight’s Special Town Meeting, Wednesday, May 4

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Rendering of the new Minuteman High School.

Three articles will be before the 290 Town Meeting Members as a Special Town Meeting convenes tonight, Wednesday, May 4 at 7:30 p.m. in the Belmont High School auditorium.                                                                                                              

Topping the agenda will be a vote to authorize the issuance of $144 million in bonds to finance the construction of a new Minuteman Technical High School. Last week both the Board of Selectmen and the Warrant Committee voted “unfavorable action” on the article, contending the building constructed to house approximately 630 students is far too big for the roughly 360 students who attend from the 10 district city and towns.

Last week both the Board of Selectmen and the Warrant Committee voted “unfavorable action” on the article, contending the building constructed to house approximately 630 students is far too big for the roughly 360 students who attend from the 10 district city and towns.

The Selectmen also noted Belmont would be required to pay between $350,000 to $500,000 annually to fund its share of the building’s cost, money that would require the town seek a debt exclusion to fund the building.

Supporters counter this “right-sized” building will quickly attract both students who are increasingly seeking practical educational options and towns that will join the school district to ensure their students will have a place at the table.

While the second article – taking the $1.7 million the town received from the sale of town-owned land adjacent to Woodfall Road to fund the feasibility study and other expense of the renovation/new construction at Belmont High School – appears straight forward, Selectman Jim Williams has filed an amendment. He is seeking a debate on whether there is a more appropriate funding source for this venture.

For example, Williams points to the approximately $3 million Kendell Fund – established with money from the insurance after the Kendell School building burned down – which was specifically created to pay for feasibility studies of municipal projects. Williams’ amendment received a 2-1 “unfavoriable action” vote from his fellow Selectmen. Williams had said he will support Article 2 whether his amendment is accepted.

The final article would appropriate $1.45 million in free cash – some call the line item the town’s “savings account” – to the purchase of six modular classrooms to be constructed on the tennis courts of the Chenery Middle School to help elevates the ongoing enrollment crunch.

State Readies Sale Of Incinerator Site to Town; Special Town Meeting To Accept Land

By 2 Comments

Photo: The entry to the former incinerator site. 

It’s been nearly two years in the works but this week, the state is preparing to hand over a former trash incinerator closed for the past five decades back to the town.

The Belmont Board of Selectmen will vote on a date, likely in June, to hold a Special Town Meeting where members will vote whether to accept or reject the conveyance from the state to the town of the nearly 16-acre parcel sitting adjacent upper Concord Avenue and Rock Meadow Conservation about 1,500 feet from the Lexington town line.

“We have received communication that this conveyance is in the process of being executed by [the state] depending on what we have to execute,” said David Kale, Belmont’s town administrator. 

IMG_3471 IMG_3473

Once accepted, the town is required by the state to remediate the site which includes removing or “capping” the contaminated soil polluted by the ash produced by the burned garbage. As part of the agreement, the state, through the Department of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance which is responsible for the disposition of state-owned property, will subtract the amount the town spends on remediation from the assessed value of the property.

Belmont in 2006 created a special stabilization account to fund the future “clean-up” of the site. There is currently $4.2 million in the account, according to Kale. 

“The total cost will also depend on post-closure uses,” he said.

The sale has been years in the making. In 2012, as it was considering using the site for athletic fields or other uses, the town discovered ownership of the site had reverted to the state once the incinerator was formally shut down in the early 1980s.

In January 2014, former Gov. Deval Patrick signed legislation sponsored by State Rep. Dave Rogers  authorizing the sale of the state-owned land to the town at a “fair market value.” An important provision of the transfer is the land is limited to recreational or municipal use; it can not be sold or leased for commercial or business operations.

Built in 1959, the incinerator operated until 1975, then becoming the town’s transfer station for two decades. It is currently used by the Belmont DPW for equipment storage, leaf composting and debris.

In November 2014, the selectmen held a meeting with  Town Meeting members and the public on possible uses for the former incinerator which included a solar “farm,” sports fields, open space and a future home for Police headquarters or the DPW.

Give And Take On Pleasant Church Cell Antennae Debate

By 1 Comment

[Editor’s note: With the successful citizen’s petition, a Special Town Meeting – the date sometime in June to be determined by the Board of Selectmen on Wednesday, May 4 – will be convened to debate changing the zoning bylaw to require the installation of interior wireless telecommunication antennae to obtain a special permit rather than the current zoning distinction of an “as of right.” This change would specifically place a greater burden on the attempt by Verizon to place a cell antennae inside the steeple of the Plymouth Congregational Church on Pleasant Street. Currently, a significant number of neighbors to the church are protesting the partnership and the communications device. Belmont are two opinions on the matter, both from Pleasant Street.]

Some comments were shortened.

John Beaty

I write to my neighbors, the Plymouth Congregational Church, and the Belmont community after watching and reading our neighborhood protest for almost six months. It is important to me to write a note that all three groups can read. 

With a little bit discussion with experts and reading, it is easy to come to the conclusion that cell towers provide less exposure to microwaves than cell phones, about 5 to 10 times less, and the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society think there is very little evidence to support the idea that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. 

But these facts are not relevant, my neighbors are afraid, and do not want any additional microwave exposure. In opposition to my neighbor’s fear and concern are the needs of Plymouth Congregational Church. The Church needs the income from the Verizon cell tower to continue its existence and mission. Neither group has communicated with the other effectively.

It appears to me that the tone of protest has become increasingly acrimonious without cause. The fear, acrimony, and misunderstanding can be reduced by meeting and talking. The time to sit on the sidelines has passed. The Pleasant Street neighborhood and the Plymouth Congregational Church need to put their fears aside, talk with one another and work toward a resolution of the respective issues.

The following note will address four issues in more detail. I am going to start with my understanding of the physics and the health issues, “The Science;” then move on to a discussion of “My Neighbors Are Angry and Afraid;” followed by “The Church Is Stuck;” and lastly present “My Position.” 

The Science

My conclusion from the science is that we have little to fear from having a cell phone transmitter in the Church steeple. More importantly, the American Cancer Society also thinks so. There is very little evidence to support the idea that living, working, or going to school near a cell phone tower might increase the risk of cancer or other health problems. 

Although the science and rational thinking are important, the facts on the ground are more often governed by feelings and politics, so let’s talk about the Pleasant Street neighborhood and the Plymouth Congregation Church parish.

My Neighbors Are Angry and Afraid

Again, from my point of view, my friends and neighbors are genuinely frightened of the consequences of the exposure to cell tower radiation. The science and rational approach be dammed, this is an unwanted excess exposure and they are afraid of the consequences. The duration and vigor of the neighborhood protest is a testament to the anger and fear.

The protest has been going on for about six months that I know about, but I was told that it started almost a year ago. The neighbors have communicated in many ways. The Pleasant Street residents have:

  1. Written articles that were printed in the Belmont newspaper about the Church and its intent to host a Verizon cell tower in its steeple.
  2. Written about the Church parish and its clergy and management.
  3. Campaigned within the extended Pleasant Street community to consolidate a common position against the Verizon cell tower.
  4. Posted a Facebook page about the cell tower, church, and potential effects.
  5. Printed and posted a variety of signs, some printed, some individual handiwork.
  6. Written and distributed flyers.

It has been a vigorous, vociferous, extended, and sometimes unkind campaign. Yet to my knowledge there has been no direct contact between the Pleasant Street neighbors and the Plymouth Congregational Church (parishioners, managers, or clergy). Neither have I heard, read, or seen the voice of the church community as an advocate for the Verizon cell tower, but they are continuing to move forward with their effort to obtain cell tower approval.

The Church is Stuck

The other half of the equation is the neighborhood Plymouth Congregational Church parish. I do not know, but I think that the parish is in financial decline. It must use its physical plant to keep itself financially viable. Tithing and additional donations from the parishioners is insufficient to keep it in good financial order. So, it rents space for daycare, education, and social events that apparently is not enough. I was told by a parishioner that the parish was approached by Verizon with a cell tower contract offer that would provide an additional revenue stream for the length of the contract. This extra-parochial revenue may or may not be enough to keep the Church in good order, but it would help. I speculate that the contract with Verizon is probably between $2,000 and $3,000 a month for 12 months for 15 years which amounts to more than $360,000. The money from the contract would be available for any parish expense and would probably solve their cash flow issues.

The Church is stuck. It lives in a community that it wants to serve. It has insufficient resources to take care of the Church plant and the activities of the parish. It is trying to do good work; trying to survive: serve it parish, neighborhood and the Belmont community. It is hunkered down, but continuing to move forward toward its objective.

My Position

My neighbors are important to me. As I get older, it is increasingly important to be surrounded by a community of friends and well-meaning neighbors. My spouse and I are acquainted with everyone in the neighborhood and know many of them well enough to call them friends. But we are not afraid of cell phones or cell towers and find ourselves misaligned with the protest and much of the communication.

To add to our misalignment, we know some of the parishioners and have been neighbors with the Plymouth Congregational Church for 30 years. We know about some of the good works the parish has done over those years and view the church as a good neighbor.

The time has come to state my position. I believe in science and public policy based on scientific facts and rational thinking. I believe in direct communication. I believe in civil (sometimes you have to shout to be heard) and respectful discourse. To be more direct: I think the Church and the Pleasant Street neighborhood should talk to one another. The two groups need to figure out a pathway forward with the cell tower.

Glenn Herosian

We all appreciate your desire to promote a resolution of the dispute in our neighborhood. However, your timely commentary reads more like a well-coached spin from a political consultant hired by the church rather than an appeal from a concerned neighbor. Why would you write this sincere appeal to the local press? 

Your neighbors are understandably fearful of the ill-defined and involuntary Radiofrequency (RF) radiation about to be thrust into our kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms. But we are far from ignorant about Verizon’s plans for its steeple. Rather, we are outraged by the church’s insensitivity to its neighbors and use of its non-profit status to transform a place of worship into a cell phone tower ”business.” Between congregation donations, probable Community Preservation Act funding, and current monthly rents from numerous tenants, the church’s financial needs could be satisfied without creating controversy and discord in its own neighborhood. 

Unfortunately, we continue to see mischief from Verizon as it submits misleading applications and times its actions to avoid public discussion. 

Your treatise on “the Science” mentions the appropriate RF formulas but also echoes the inaccurate mantra of the church that our occasional use of cell phones is more harmful than the continuous exposure from high powered antennas. Your example underestimates the impact of these antennas as well as the actual duration and cumulative effect on those 23 families within the red zone. The one key difference between a cell phone and base station emissions is that we can all turn off our cell phones to limit our exposure. We do not have that option to control the output of a continuously-radiating cluster of antennas hidden less than 100 feet from our childrens’ bedrooms. 

Despite your assurances, parents of children in the neighborhood take a precautionary approach to the radiation emitting from the cell phone antennas much as they would with any other danger to their children. Not one of the church’s congregation lives within the high exposure range of the Plymouth Church’s antennas. 

On January 15, eight of us stood outside the church and politely shared information about the availability of CPA funds and our willingness to work with the church. I do not believe that the church is “stuck,” nor would I generalize without facts about its financial condition. The church has some prominent members who could have guided their congregation toward CPA funding to preserve its building, leaving its other income to support its ministry. Unfortunately, church leaders have demonstrated little interest in CPA funds or restoring harmony in the neighborhood. 

Let’s remember to consider the financial impact on the town. With Belmont financially “stuck’ by the long term funding for a new high school and library, putting the cell tower on town property and receiving Verizon’s monthly cell tower fee would help a far greater number of Belmont citizens than just those attending the church. Cell phone base stations also devalue neighboring property. The combined property devaluation and loss in real estate tax revenue could total millions and hurt the town even more. 

Our group’s position is that the church should continue doing its “good work” and be a place of worship rather than becoming a cell phone business that disregards the legitimate concerns of the families living around it. We understand the “science” of our cell phones, but cannot blindly trust incomplete scientific research distorted by powerful cell phone lobbies. The win-win solution is for the Church to obtain CPA funds and Verizon to locate the antennas in a less-dense residential area to help restore harmony to our neighborhood.

Citizen Petition Triggers Special Town Meeting Targeting Wireless Antennae at Plymouth Church

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Plymouth Congregational Church.

A group of residents, many who have led the effort to halt the installation of cellular antennae inside the steeple of Plymouth Congregational Church on Pleasant Street, have successfully filed a citizen’s petition that now requires the town to hold a Special Town Meeting in June aimed at placing a steep roadblock to the plans by the church and its telecommunication giant partner.

As the petitioners are pushing to add more stringent requirements on this and other future wireless projects, church leaders told the Belmontonian they are moving forward with a revised plan they anticipate will pass muster before a small governmental commission that is hearing the proposal.

The Special Town Meeting, which Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman said will likely take place on June 8 during the budget session of the annual Town Meeting, will ask Members to change the town’s bylaw on the installation of internal wireless telecommunications facilities.

The language of the petition – signed by 242 residents – seeks to modify the town’s current zoning bylaws in which smaller cell installations are currently “allowed by right” – in which no town oversight is needed to obtain a building permit – to requiring property owners to get a “special permit” before commencing work, “giving interested Belmont residents an opportunity to provide input to the deliberations of the Zoning Board of Appeal.”

Precinct 4’s Judith Sarno – who with Karen Herosian, Danny Morris and Ron Creamer sponsored the petition – said the petition is a “modest amendment to bring the zoning for wireless telecommunications facilities into the 21st century and offer residents a voice,” and not an attempt to disallow these operations from operating in Belmont.

“[We] are simply asking Town Meeting to allow for more transparency and some notice to concerned neighbors, by simply changing [the bylaw] to a Special Permit,” said Sarno.

Under the special permit requirement, a property owner would be required to present its plan before the Zoning Board of Appeals to demonstrate that a cell tower would not place a burden on the neighboring community. The new requirement would also require notification of neighbors and allow for comments from residents before the ZBA.

In recent rulings, the ZBA has demonstrated a propensity to rule against commercial proposals, from some small day care operations to larger enterprises including a hotel, a Dunkin Donuts franchise and placing stringent restrictions on individual homeowners who put their properties on the popular Airbnb room sharing website.

There are nine existing wireless cell facilities in Belmont; in Belmont Center, a large tower adjacent to the new Highland Cemetery on Concord Avenue and on 125 Trapelo Rd. in Cushing Square, which handles four of the biggest cell providers: AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint.

The suggested change to the zoning bylaws after the church finalized an agreement with the telecommunication giant Verizon, which is about to present a revised plan to the Historic District Commission, which must OK any exterior structural changes to the steeple before the major construction can take place.

“Verizon will be presenting a revised design plan to remove the air-conditioning compressors and to retain the wooden louvers, thus eliminating the noise concerns of neighbors and preserving the current appearance of the steeple, respectively,” said 

Verizon has begun preliminary work in the area in January after the Planning Board approved the design and site plan review to place the antenna inside the steeple.

“As of now the work is related solely to Verizon and does not require a building permit,” Glenn Clancy, director of the Office of Community Development, told the Belmontonian in February.

“The Verizon work is allowed as it would be for any private property owner” with the owner taking the “risk onto themselves” if the permit is ultimately not issued, said Clancy.

From the church’s view, a majority of town residents will benefit from better cell reception.

“Town officials and Town Meeting members should take the actions that are appropriate to providing better-quality and reliable cell service to improve the ability of all its residents, visitors and businesses, alike, to conduct business, education and social interactions,” said Chet Messer, chair of the Board of Trustees of Plymouth Church.

Live at Special Town Meeting: Minuteman Regional Agreement

By 1 Comment

Photo: Moderator Mike Widmer.

Hello, as the Town Meeting convenes for a special meeting to discuss and vote on a new Minuteman Regional Agreement,

7:11 p.m.: Moderator Mike Widmer begins the meeting as more than 100 members have arrived to reach a quorum. While the electronic voting was being checked, one of the members shouted out: “Slow it down!”

“Tough crowd,” said Jack Weis. Pct. 1.

7:18 p.m.: A remembrance of Dick Betts and a wonderful standing ovation for Becca Pizzi, the young woman who won the World Marathon Challenge.

IMG_0143

7:28 p.m.: An update from School Committee Chair Laurie Slap and Superintendent John Phelan on the need for additional space for the schools.

7:34 p.m.: Slap will present Article 3 which will establish a building committee for the purpose of renovation and/or new construction of the high school.

All boards recommend favorable action.

Slap presents a brief presentation on the important dates coming forward during the beginning of the process of renovating the high school.

Marianne Scali is offering her amendment that would add a simple statement that would require the school building committee to take special attention of hazardous waste that may be in the soil where the renovation is taking place. The area was once a town dump.

The selectmen vote unfavorable action but Sami Baghdady, Selectmen chair, said the board is for doing all it can to make sure the development is safe when children attend the site.

Phelan said the state required a complete review of the soil as part of the process of renovating the site. He said the School Committee is committed to the safety of the students and staff.

Bob McLaughlin, Pct. 2, said while it is unnecessary, he voting for the amendment because he does not want to headlines that say Town Meeting is against safety issues. “It will help alleviate the enrollment problem,” said McLaughlin, with a hardy laugh.

7:52 p.m.: Baghdady said tinkering with the language at this early date could foul up the process with the state which only wants simple language establishing a building committee. The more appropriate time for this amendment is when the building committee is adequately staffed and financed.

David Kale, the town administrator, explains that the process will require testing, and if something is found to be unsafe, a more in-depth study will be required.

Members appear skeptical of just relying on the state process.

Mark Paolillo, Board of Selectmen, said have heard people concerns of possible safety issues, but there is nothing that can be done now as this measure precedes the time for environmental inspection.

Scali said she is withdrawing her amendment, having highlighted the issue and declares victory. 

Kevin Cunningham, Pct. 4, asked Widmer who will be put on the school building committee. Widmer said the committee, about 15 people, will be working for 10 years and wants people who can put the time and has some expertise in building, construction, education, neighbors and parents. 

A number of people have reached out to him and he is taking names: send those names to mike.j.widmer@gmail.com

He will have the committee completed in three weeks, have names into him by this Friday.  

The vote is taken and is adopted unanimously. 

8:12 p.m.: Now the Minuteman Regional Agreement:

“This is a close call,” said Paolillo who will speak along with McLaughlin and Weis.

Back in the 1970s, the facility was full with 1,200 students, now 650 with little more than half from the 16 member towns.

“It no longer serves the district,” said Paolillo, noting the enrollment is declining while non-member towns are sending more students.

“We’re subsidizing the non-member students especially when it comes to capital costs,” said Paolillo.

Paolillo goes over the history and the dysfunctional nature of the agreement, needing unanimous votes (16-0) to amend and leave the district. It was a shared frustration with other board of selectmen that led to the new revised regional agreement that includes a “Belmont” provision that requires out-of-district students to pay a capital “fee.” 

While a tough call, a reconstituted agreement is the best for Belmont students said, Paolillo. 

8:30 p.m.: Jack Weis talks about the major reasons for vote yes for the amended agreement. Weis is going step by step through the changes from the old agreement.  

You can see what Jack is talking about here.

9 p.m.: Bob McLaughlin, Pct. 2 so that wrote my job is to clear away the fog. “It’s bad policy” but it’s the best that they can do. 

Leaning on the lecturn as if he was talking to a jury, McLaughlin – an attorney – told the members in a 10 minute speech to rally around the revised amendment as the best of a bad situation, noting that at least approving the measure would allow the town to have a vote in June concerning the debt and it allows the school to secure $44 million in state funding.

9;26 p.m.: Vincent Stanton, Pct. 3, asks if the school district can educate inhouse the vocational students now being sent to Minuteman. That was beyond the scope of the measure.

Quickly, Don Mercier, Pct. 8, called the question. Only a single question was asked. The calling was seconded and the measure passes easily 171-8. 

See you in May for the annual Town Meeting. 

Five Things To Know About the Special Town Meeting (Minuteman Edition)

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Special Town Meeting 

Tonight’s Belmont Special Town Meeting – being held Monday, Feb. 22 at the Chenery Middle School – will include a vote to establish a Building Committee for the Belmont High School renovation and whether to include a site evaluation of the soil for contaminants at the high school before construction begins (even though that will occur as part of the building process.)

But those votes are just appetizers for the main course which comprises of the future of the Minuteman Career and Technical High School in Lexington, the location where a little more than two dozen Belmont students are taught in a vocational-technical environment. Belmont’s assessment to Minuteman fluctuates yearly from $830,000 in fiscal ’16 to $750,000 in the coming fiscal year. 

What the Special Town Meeting will not explore is the education being provided the Belmont residents, but the building where they are being taught and who’s going to pay for a new High School. 

According to Jack McLaughlin, the representative from Belmont’s Warrant Committee who helped shaped the new regional contract, the proposal before Town Meeting “is a terrible agreement until you see the alternative.” 

  1. Here’s a brief history leading up to the special town meeting:
  • In July 2014, the Lexington Fire Department came close to condemning the building, built in 1972, for lots of reasons.
  • Minuteman’s administration begins the process of building a new school with an expected population of roughly 700 kids. 
  • Towns such as Belmont and Arlington wanted to put the brakes on this deal because 1. a high percentage of students come from municipalities outside the district (Waltham, Malden and Watertown that sends double the kids from Belmont) and 2. under the current agreement those towns don’t have to pay a red penny towards the debt to build the new facility even though the school’s current freshman class is nearly 50/50, district/non-district students. 
  • Belmont said “enough” to the planned school, saying if a new school is built, then it should be constructed for 400 kids, the number of students from members towns. The Minuteman administration, saying they need a big school to offer a greater number of courses to draw in students, virtually ignores the opponents and pushes forward with a new, larger school.
  • Belmont – led by Belmont’s Minuteman School Committee member Jack Weis, the Warrant Committee’s Jack McLaughlin and Selectman Mark Paolillo – and Arlington told Minuteman unless they have a new regional agreement, you can expect a big fat NO when it comes time to approve issuing debt for the school. That would cause all sort of delays and chaos for the administration. 
  • In a surprise move, the Minuteman administration agrees in December to put up a regional agreement before the 16 municipalities for a vote. It must be a unanimous vote from the town meetings for it to pass. 
  • On the same day in January that Belmont received the state go-head from the Massachusetts School Building Authority to start the process of renovating and construction of Belmont High School, Minuteman was approved to begin the undertaking of building its new school. It will need to come back to the state by June 30, to demonstrate how they will pay for it. (i.e.,, the communities).

      2. So, is tonight’s meeting about how much the town will have to pay for a new Minuteman High School?

No, that decision, to approve a $144 million new building, will come before June 30. Tonight’s vote is all about adopting a new regional agreement between the 16 towns and cities that are in the “district” including Belmont.

     3. What’s in this new agreement?

A lot, specifically for Belmont.

  1. The new agreement jettisons the school committee’s “one-town, one-vote” and moves to a proportional board where those towns that send the most kids to the school have a greater weighted vote. 
  2. It will be a bit easier to draw new towns into the club – it’s a buy-in incentive – giving them four years of gradual increasing capital payments before reaching their full assessment.
  3. Communities can withdraw much more quickly from the district, no longer needing all 16 other towns to agree. And seven of the 16 municipalities will be attempting to do just that if the agreement passes. Why? The towns – nearly all with only a handful of students – would not have to pay their part of the long-term debt. But by doing so, they would be prevented from returning to the district for four years. 
  4. Cities and towns of out-of-district students will also be paying for the new school as each student will be assessed “a capital facilities fee” equal to at least the average member- town cost. That fee will need to be approved by the state, but Belmont reps said officials from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education didn’t make much of a fuss when presented with a draft agreement.
  5. Then there is the issuance of debt. All 16 (or 9, if the smaller communities leave) town meetings will still need to approve the $144 million building plan. [With state grants, the final price tag will be $100 million] Under the new agreement, if a town meeting rejects the debt plan, it can withdraw from the district before a second vote is called by the Minuteman administration. This way a portion of the $100 million debt can not be “crammed down on Belmont.” 

      4. The new agreement looks like a very good deal for Belmont; what could go wrong?

Plenty. Here’s one: legal action by Watertown and other communities for the state to throw out the capital facilities fee placed on their students. Malden and Watertown have some powerful friends in the legislature.

Here’s another, the school remains oversized for the number of students from the district, and that will not change. Belmont would see an additional $350,000 (increasing the average real estate tax bill by $38) added to its annual assessment bringing the town’s total yearly charge to a million dollars while Arlington would pay $1.5 million. 

Also, it’s unlikely that the state will approve the new agreement before a vote will take by the 16 towns to support the debt. It appears that despite voting for a new regional agreement, Belmont and the other towns will be required to play by the “old rules” which doesn’t allow for an escape clause for towns that don’t agree with the size of the building or other aspects of the new school.

 5. So why not just vote down the whole complex proposal?

Yes, that is an option. Only that there are consequences, the first is losing the Mass School Building Authority’s $45 million grant to build the new school. And since Belmont is a member of the district and under the old agreement can not leave without the approval of the other 15 member towns, it will be required to repair the building. That cost: $176.5 million over 10 years. 

 

Postponing Belmont’s Special Town Meeting Could Be A ‘Snow’-Day Decision

By Leave a Comment

Photo: It will Town Moderator Mike Widmer’s (left) decision to postpone Monday’s Special Town Meeting.

The possibility of difficult traveling conditions and limited parking at the Chenery Middle School could put on hold Belmont’s Special Town Meeting scheduled to convene Monday night, Feb. 8. at 7 p.m.

With a Winter Storm Warning in effect for Eastern Massachusetts for all-day Monday and into Tuesday morning, Town Clerk Ellen Cushman has been in contact with Town Moderator Michael Widmer to advise him of state law regarding postponing Town Meeting due to inclement weather.

A new Massachusetts General Law from 2015 now allows the town moderator to declare “a continuation” of town meeting to a later date – within 14 days – after consultation with local public safety officials and members of the board of selectmen. 

“Mike is the one who will make the choice tomorrow [Monday],” said Cushman. “We will be in touch with Town Meeting Members and media tomorrow” after a decision is made, she said.

Even if the meeting is “postpone,” Widmer and Cushman must physically make their way to the Chenery Middle School – the site of the special Town Meeting – for the 7 p.m. “call the meeting,” so they can then vote to “recess” to a date certain.

Monday’s meeting is to discuss and vote on a new regional agreement with Minuteman Tech and vote to create a building committee for the high school renovation and new construction. 

Special Town Meeting on Minuteman, HS Building Committee Proposed for Feb. 8

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Minuteman Regional HS

Belmont officials s selected a tentative date for Town Meeting to vote to approve or reject a new regional agreement for the Minuteman Career and Technical High School.

The Board of Selectmen will discuss and vote for a Special Town Meeting on Monday, Feb. 8 at 7 p.m. in the Chenery Middle School’s auditorium at its Monday, Jan. 11 meeting.

That same night members will also decide to create a building committee to oversee a major renovation of Belmont High School. But this article comes with a big “if.” 

Along with accepting the date, Selectmen will open and close the Special Town Meeting warrant – at which time items can be put on Town Meetings agenda – during the discussion.

Town Meeting members will be asked to approve a series of fundamental changes to the existing agreement with the 15 other towns and cities in the Minuteman. 

Those alterations include the ability of members communities to withdrawal from the agreement (a number of towns with a handful of students have indicated they wished to depart the group) and requires out-of-district communities such as Watertown, Waltham and Medford which send nearly 40 percent of the new students to the school, to help pay a proportional share of capital costs of a new $144 million building.

In a last minute addition to the warrant, members will be asked to approve the creation of a Belmont High School Building Committee, which will direct the estimated $100 million renovations of the existing building and the construction of a science wing. 

The article was suggested by Pat Brusch of the Capital Budget Committee and former vice-chair of the Wellington Building Committees, who said the creation of a committee will give the group a several month head start on working with the state on the multi-year project and begin building public consensus for the project.

The town will likely vote in 2017 on a $65-$70 million debt exclusion to fund the project. 

The article’s big “if” is that its existence depends on the approval of the School District’s Statement of Interest by the Massachusetts School Building Authority which will fund close to a third of the renovation and construction costs.

The MSBA will select approximately half of the 25 projects currently on its “short” list at its Jan. 28 meeting.