Belmont Town Meeting Approves $1.3 M Path Price Tag Despite Last Minute Appraisal Surprise

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Select Board Chair Matt Taylor

The phones of Belmont Town Meeting Members began pinging a notification from the Town Clerk’s Office less than two hours from the start of the last week of the annual Town Meeting on June 8. 

“Urgent Update” – ATM (annual town meeting) and STM” read the 5:14 p.m. message. And many – if not most – members knew what was being revised, having been told that last-minute appraisal amounts would be coming in for a pair of articles authorizing payment for easement rights or the taking of property the meeting had voted to authorize the week before.

What was unexpected was how much the price tag attached to one of them would be.

Crossing out an earlier estimate of $200,000 in Article 3 found in a Special Town Meeting, town officials would be asking members in just a few hours to appropriate $1.3 million to gain control of the right of way over a pair of narrow parcels making up a spur of Alexander Avenue from Channing Road to the commuter rail tracks.

Apologizing for “the whiplash” the news had on the meeting, Select Board Chair Matt Taylor told the assembly it was facing an almost impossible hard and fast early August deadline from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to do anything but vote Wednesday.

“The consequenses of voting this down [is] it is extremely unlikely that we will have the funds to acquire the property rights needed for the community path,” said Taylor, thus missing out on the millions of funding, while seeing the thousands of volunteer hours and $2.2 of town and Community Preservation Committee recommended funding spent on design and acquistion of right of way would be wasted.

“And then it would be back to the drawing board,” said Taylor, with the real likelihood that a Community Path in Belmont would never be realized.

In many ways, members were presented with a scenario straight from the silent films: the Community Path was tied to the tracks with the funding deadline barreling down on it with only that Town Meeting vote able to come to the rescue.

And while many Town Meeting Members were critical of feeling “jammed” by the appraisal results and the lateness of its delivery, the loss of the path as this late junction was too great for the majority of the Meeting to tolerate.

Also favoring a ‘yes’ vote was having a source of the $1.3 million in one-time funds from this fiscal year’s Investment Income account, as well as recent precedent when almost two years ago to the day Town Meeting approved an additional $1.5 million to help cover a $4 million shortfall to construct the Belmont Sports Complex. 

“I think many people talk about this being shocking; unexpected things happen,” said Emily Peterson (Precinct 1). “To vote ‘no’ on this because it was unanticipated is biting your nose off to spite your face.” 

And many who were hesitant to be pushed to vote on the measure by the deadline constraints followed the example of the venerable Town Meeting member Robert McLaughlin (Precinct 2), who explained that while he had difficulty squaring the circle of the appraisal, “I’m going to hold my nose and vote for it.” 

The article – which required a Special Meeting format as it required current fiscal year funding – passed 212 in favor, 24 opposed, and two abstained. 

The importance of the unpaved path, principally used by MBTA crews to maintain the Fitchburg commuter line running through Belmont, is what it represents: the final pieces of the parcel puzzle needed to open the purse strings to release $48 million in construction funding to build the first half of the Belmont Community Path.

The project – a bike lane from Brighton Street through Belmont Center to the Clark Street bridge and pedestrian tunnel under the tracks – has taken the better part of a decade to envision, plan, garner support, and obtain state and federal funding commitments to arrive at a point that all the parts would come together to receive MassDOT’s final OK by the early weeks of August.

But to keep to the deadline, the vote to approve the allocation needed to occur at Town Meeting. And the new eye-opening cost had many believing reaching the two-thirds approval benchmark would be at risk. 

The appraisal spike in the assessed value was likely due to “new development opportunities.” But even with the possibility of new development in Belmont Center and the construction of Cambridge Point, the $4.5 billion “mini-city” a quarter mile from the east Belmont line with more than 2,000 apartments and 2.5 million square feet of lab and office space, a doubling of the initial $200,000 value, was seen by many as a stretch.

To explain the ramping up of the cost, McLaughlin – an attorney with extensive experience in real estate – said appraising plots of land that measure just a few feet “are about as difficult as they come” due to the concept of “residual damage.” If taking that small parcel is critical to the value of the entire parcel, the owner is entitled to be compensated for the full amount of the damage the path caused.

“My guess is that these appraisers first saw how little square footage was being taken and came up with the initial $200,000. When you drilled down on the job, the owner told them, “Oh, now I’ve lost my view, now I’ve lost my privacy, now the fair market value of my whole property is a lot less,” said McLaughlin. It was only then the appraisers by $1.1 million. 

Complicating the request was a narrowing timeline to the deadline. With the timer ticking down to zero, Town Meeting had little leeway but to take the vote on a plan that was more than a fivefold increase in the estimated cost. 

Conspiring in compressing the deadline were an insistent MassDOT that Belmont seek funding in this year’s funding cycle squeezing the permitting process and not riding the appraisers to complete their task well before Town Meeting. Town Counsel Mina Makarious, whose firm Anderson & Kreiger hired the appraisal team, acknowledged he could have pushed the analysts more than he did but said the review was delayed due to the lateness in state documents and just the ability to visit the site. 

After 90 minutes of debate, Town Meeting Members voted emphatically – if with some grumbling – to stay the course.

Last Minute Withdrawal Of Citizen Petitions Sideswipes Annual Town Meeting Lineup

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Belmont Select Board (from left) Taylor Yates, Matt Taylor, Carol Berberian.

Mere minutes before the Belmont Select Board was to review and vote Friday, April 17, on the 38 articles in the annual Town Meeting Warrant, they – along with the Town Clerk and Town Moderator – received a briefly worded e-mail from Paul Joy (Precinct 7), who authored six citizen petitions on the warrant.

“I am ready to officially inform you and town meeting members of my intention to withdraw the following citizens petitions. Article 9, Article 10, Article 12, Article 13, and Article 14,” said Joy, with no further explanation. 

Joy did not explain his decision to the email’s recipients or the Belmontonian. 

Coming less than three weeks from the May 4 start of the town’s legislative body, it would appear Joy’s action would be received with a sigh of relief, as removing five likely time-consuming articles would cut one or two of the eight nights scheduled to debate and vote on the historic number of articles.

But in reality, Joy’s last-minute retreat had pulled the rug from under the town’s preparation after spending nearly a month carefully constructing the meeting’s schedule. With the citizen petitions being some of the first of the articles brought before the 288-member assembly, their removal so close to the opening night has thrown the meeting’s agenda way out of whack.

According to the town, simply moving up the articles in a “next man up” approach will not work.

Select Board Chair Matt Taylor said the placement of the citizen’s petitions was based on the detailed arguments and communication and documents from the petitioners, where “we made plans to accommodate and support every resident’s right to submit a petition article.”

The board purposely scheduled the citizens petitions – which are traditionally more contentious articles that take time to explain and debate – in early May, which would allow town committees and boards still working on important budgetary and bylaw articles the additional time to allow the necessary work to “get their things done,” said Taylor.

“We’re doing what we can with the information you have, but I can’t move anything up that’s not ready. We could do the [town] budget right now, but the Warrant Committee – Town Meeting’s financial “watchdog” – is not ready, and that’s based on where the petitions are,” said Town Administrator Patrice Garvin. 

Adding to the disarray, “[w]e’re going into a school vacation week where some people are unavailable or have made other plans,” further contracting the time [the town and boards] can commit to the articles,” said Taylor.

“We spent a considerable amount of time on the articles with the Town Council. We had two meetings [with the Town Moderator Adam Dash] to discuss order,” said Garvin. “It’s just the amount of work that’s just been committed to the meeting that’s in two weeks.

“I’ve said repeatedly over the years that citizen petitions are not just these simple things that come before us. It’s hours of work involved, hours of work that aren’t even focused on other things [in the administrator’s office],” said Garvin.

“Now it’s completely blown apart,” she said, adding that she doesn’t know how the town and she can meet the pace.

Joy’s act has the town scrambling, forcing an extraordinary meeting with the Town Moderator, Select Board, and Town Administrator on Patriots’ Day Monday holiday to undo the damage.

Joy introduced his citizen petitions as an attempt to increase transparency and citizen empowerment.

  • Article 14: Home Rule Petition to Elect the Planning Board 
  • Article 9: Annual ‘State of the Town’ Report and Public Forum.
  • Article 12 Resolution Urging Increased State Aid to Municipalities. 
  • Article 10: Mandatory Independent Audit and Public Presentation
  • Article 13: Full Disclosure of Revolving Funds

In Friday’s email, Joy said he is standing by Article 11, which would require a fiscal impact statement and public hearings for zoning articles. Joy added he anticipates two friendly amendments in the following days to accompany the measure but would not reveal who those authors are or what the . 

What Joy did reveal at Monday’s meeting was the article is being backed by an ad hoc residents group that failed in its effort to defeat the Belmont Center Overlay District article at a Special Town Meeting in March.

“I will say that the residents that were a part of For Better Belmont Zoning were quite supportive of this given proposal, and they also felt that it was incredibly important, especially as it related to future potential zoning articles and proposals that would come before Town Meeting,” Joy told the board.

The Belmont Center Overlay District was approved 172 in favor, 82 opposed, with 7 abstentions.

While Joy did not give an explanation for the withdrawal when contacted by the Belmontonian over the weekend, an encounter on Monday, April 13, was a likely catalyst for the removal of five of his six articles. Joy appeared before the board Monday to present each article in what was seen as an informational overview.

Paul Joy (Precinct 7) at the 2025 annual Town Meeting

“Why am I proposing these changes?” said Joy, addressing the board. “Too many residents feel unheard. Public comment is limited to 15 minutes. Meetings start at 5:30 p.m., when families are rushing home from work or after-school activities, and for more than a year, residents have really been unable to comment on the vast majority of public agenda items at this board.” Joy said his petitions are “the embodiment of citizen empowerment. They are our way as citizens [that] it’s time to separate people from issues and the challenges of the assumptions that I feel are holding us back.”

Joy proceeded to give an account for each article. An elected Planning Board, which the majority of Massachusetts municipalities employ, which “creates competition [seemingly referring to neighboring communities] which we desperately need in this town”; a yearly town summary requiring a “clear” report on finances that will be live streamed so residents can ask questions; a non-binding resolution that urges the state to “raise municipal aid to 30 percent”; the full disclosure of revolving funds that mandates annual and/or quarterly reports showing every fund’s purpose, its balance, its revenue, its expenditure, and its vendors for more than $5,000. As an example, Joy pointed to the field maintenance revolving fund, which included $11,500 for goose control.

“I found myself asking, who do you pay $11,500 for goose control? I don’t know the answer. And if I don’t know, then how is an ordinary resident supposed to know?” queried Joy. 

But rather than simply being a passive listening post, the board took on the persona of Prof. Kingsfield grilling a first-year Harvard Law student. Under an unexpectedly severe cross-examination, the board’s probing questions left Joy at times struggling to defend his proposals. 

The board and Garvin pointed out a State of the Town report would simply be duplicating existing facts and statements while forcing the already thinly staffed administrative office to produce a very labor-intensive report with little new being presented.

“There’s tons of data. It’s how it’s organized or not organized. Curating that data is a full-time job,” said Taylor, as Garvin said since more than 60 percent of the town’s budget is under the School Committee’s purview, it would be very difficult to create without its “buy-in.”

After the board and Garvin dismantled Joy’s overture for an extensive disclosure of the town’s revolving funds, Yates bluntly said, “I don’t really understand the particular interest in revolving funds. This feels like a fishing expedition, and I’m not sure what it’s for.”

“A lot of the revolving funds are quite small. So I guess the question is, what problem are you trying to solve?” said Garvin.

“Maybe if there’s a problem you’re trying to solve, maybe start with the Warrant Committee or the Town Accountant,” said Yates.

The night also included Joy’s article that remains in the Warrant, requiring a fiscal impact analysis and public hearings for new zoning articles. Joy attempted to bring up Ira Morganstern (Precinct 7) to present the article as a “co-sponsor,” only to be rebuffed by Taylor, who said, “We’re working with you, the official submitter.”

“Don’t we want to get to the right answers?” said Morganstern. The answer to his query was simple and matter-of-fact: ‘no.’ “We’re not taking public comment,” said Taylor.

Joy said the article would require the town administrator and finance director to create a report that would estimate short-term (1 to 3 years) and long-term (5 to 10 years) effects on town revenue, costs to the town, and their net fiscal impact. The Planning Board would be required to hold a public meeting dedicated to the report.

It did not take long for the board and Garvin to begin to disassemble Joy’s argument, pointing out the proposed report’s nebulous framework to determine a currently unclear verdict.

“How would you measure the impact of zoning by law in a one-to-three-year time frame? Asked Taylor. After Joy gave a non-specific answer, Taylor zeroed in on the real issue with the article.

“How would you measure that? Or who in town is qualified to make that assessment?” he asked Joy.

“It’s not for me [to find the] department, said Joy, although he did believe the Office of Planning and Building or the Town Administrator, in his opinion, would be acceptable.

“So you think the town administrator is the qualified person to do this?” asked Taylor, as Garvin non-verbally expressed her doubt Joy’s answer was what Taylor and the board were seeking.

Taylor then exercised the article, using real-world examples to pinpoint the difficulty of reaching a comprehensive result.

“We have trouble projecting our budgets out five years, given the variance and stuff. Zoning is quite tricky, because we’re in a competition with all of our neighboring towns,” said Taylor, referring to Joy’s resolve for an elected Planning Board.

“I guess if we view it as a competition with other towns, what kinds of zoning changes would make us more competitive with other towns in your assessment? Reduction of parking requirements? What about taller buildings?”

Vice Chair Taylor Yates asked Joy how he would determine the fiscal impact of altering a setback, which typically is the minimum distance – usually just a matter of feet – between a building and a property line. 

“Who has the final say on the fiscal impact analysis? There are a bunch of different ways to do it. You have a set of assumptions. I have a set of assumptions. Matt has a set of assumptions. Carol [Berberian, Belmont’s newly elected board member] has a set of assumptions. Ira has a set of assumptions. Whose set of assumptions fulfills this requirement?” Yates asked Joy.

Garvin, who will be doing most of the heavy lifting in creating the report, said an unintended consequence of the article would require financial analysis on major structural zoning articles in this year’s warrant, including Site Plan Review and Construction Management.

“How would I go about doing a financial impact study on Site Plan Review?” asked Garvin.

When Joy said the report would determine any major increase in school-age children or revenue loss to the town, Garvin countered that she could “make a financial argument for anything you want.” While Joy was talking about zoning that leads to development, Garvin saw it impacting “the process of how the town works.”

Yet it was not all critical reflection of Joy’s arguments. Berberian, who is a former Planning Board member, asked if the board and town can “build off what we have in place.” 

“Could we improve on the financial modeling? Probably, if we look at it in a slightly different direction. I think that there’s always the opportunity to improve some of what I had heard about this, the viability of our zoning in terms of the financial impact. I do think there is some relevancy to that,” said Berberian.

After approximately an hour-long grilling, the writing was on the wall as the citizen petitions had scant support from the executive branch.

And in a final ironic moment, the Select Board reached out to Joy to prevent what he would do five days later.

Because of the high level of work required of town staff, “we ask residents to please work with us, work with the staff, because there may be an answer to what you’re trying to accomplish that already exists,” said Taylor. 

“Please have a conversation with us, because we’re juggling a lot. We’re trying to do a lot with a little. And this is a case where I think if you had coordinated with town staff, we could have addressed this without a petition and without the additional reports from Town Council.”

Berberian said she appreciated the intent behind a lot of what Joy brought forward, “and I do think that we can do a lot with collaboration with you.”

“The door’s always open,” she said.