Town Meeting Passes Belmont Center Overlay, Hotel Bylaw; Rejects Move To Postpone Controversial Measure

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Select Board Chair Matt Taylor (left) and Select Board member Elizabeth Dionne offer congratulations as the measure creating the Belmont Center Overlay District passes at the March 4 Special Town Meeting

After an hours-long debate, a Special Town Meeting on March 4 approved creating a Belmont Center Overlay District, which town officials and supporters believe will spur needed development and revenue growth and housing opportunities in the town’s business hub.

The vote margin on Article 2 – 172 in favor, 82 opposed, with 7 abstentions—was surprising to many who attended the meeting in the Chenery Upper Elementary School auditorium and online believed a late social media push by those opposing the measure would result in a long night with an uncertain outcome that Kalshi would have given even odds.

But a healthy majority of Town Meeting Members rejected the attempt by critics to indefinitely postpone the vote and see the article return in the fall, after undergoing an extensive revamping to further modify down the height of structures and identify “realistic” parking solutions allowing Belmont to continue to uphold its “our small-town feel.”

But the maneuver was dismissed by backers, with one overlay supporter saying it “[was] just a warm and fuzzy way to kill [the plan].”

“All of us, regardless of which side we’re on, should want to get back to [our constituents] with a yes or no answer,” urged Julie Crockett (Precinct 5), saying that “[Town Meeting] wouldn’t be voting on this proposal that we’re all intimately familiar with. It would be something else.”

And just before 10:30 p.m., Town Meeting stood behind the town’s and the Planning Board’s construct.

“I’m shocked [at the size of the yes vote],” said Chris Ryan, Belmont’s town planner and chief architect of the form-based plan, who counted himself as one who felt the decision would be a nail-biter. “I’m pleased and proud of the citizens for their vote of confidence,” said Ryan as he accepted praise from supporters on Wednesday.

A day later, on Thursday, March 5, the Special Town Meeting voted approval of Article 3, which places an overlay on three parcels along Concord Avenue that could open a way for a lodging house to come to Belmont, which hasn’t been home to one since the Wellington Olmsted Tavern, which was demolished in 1897.

The lopsided margin of the 261 members voting yes over the two nights is being touted as a historic vindication of those who developed and campaigned for the Overlay District, revealing that residents are eager to take bold steps to revitalize other areas of town.

“I think we are now living in a different dynamic,” said Taylor Yates, the Select Board’s vice chair, who spearheaded the board’s efforts supporting the measure. “Belmont is saying ‘yes’ to things.
I think we’re trying to be more positive and proactive as we watch the surrounding communities change.”

Thayer Donham, chair of the Planning Board, said the members decision proved the body has faith in the board’s deliberative process, which will benefit future projects.

Dionne echoed Yates and the Planning Board on the importance of passing both bylaw measures.

“This is an inflection point,” Select Board member Elizabeth Dionne said of the articles’ sweeping passage. “This is pivotal. And I don’t want to say that it’s only symbolic. It’s a relatively simple plan because it’s small and contained. If we couldn’t get this across the finish line, we couldn’t get anything across the finish line.”

“Every time we try to create one of these plans, it requires a huge investment of time, staff, and money for consultants; we can’t justify investing that again if we were unable to finish this. So this lays the groundwork for everything else that the town wants to do,” said Dionne.

‘Yeah, we get it’

In the view of supporters, not many voters were swayed by the two nights of debate, as campaigners had made a successful pro-Overlay pitch to undecided members months previous. 

“There was one constant since January 2025. The more we talked to residents about the plan, the more they said, “Yeah, we get it,” said Yates. 

Dionne – who held informational meetings at her house for members from each precinct to explain the plan in late 2025 – was also not surprised by Town Meeting’s sweeping endorsement of the new bylaws.

“I thought we’d get there because my experience was that once people came into my house and I explained the plan, it wasn’t this big, scary plan. A lot of people came in skeptical but left saying, ‘I like that. That could actually be really nice.'”

The Belmont Center Overlay is designed to address three main concerns of the town, said Donham, who presented Article 2 to the assembly: maintain Belmont Center as a vibrant downtown, meet the needs of downsizing seniors and others who want smaller housing options, and begin addressing the financial challenges of a town with a minimal commercial tax base. 

“[T]onight, we’re presenting a real opportunity to begin generating more revenue. More effective zoning will attract private investment into our community while the town maintains control of the finished product,” said Donham.

The overlay district allows structure heights within the four zones varying from two-and-a-half stories in Zone 1 to five stories in Zone 4. At least two stories of commercial space are required in all zones, with limited residential development required, helping establish a built-in customer base for Belmont Center businesses.

While presenting details of the district, Ryan noted the center’s existing zoning code is limiting, allowing by right only two-story structures and 28 feet in height, “and that’s why nothing happens here.” 

The new form-based zoning code will give Belmont “more control over the appearance of the buildings and the streets. It’s a proven planning tool that’s been used around the country and in communities across Massachusetts” including Brookline, Watertown, and Littleton.

Ryan told members the Planning Department and Planning Board held 30 public meetings and listening sessions in the past 14 months, incorporating public input and altering major aspects of the plan, including reducing maximum heights and excluding the Claflin Street Parking Lot from development. Traffic and parking studies and a financial analysis were conducted.

When debate commenced – with nearly 30 members waiting before two microphones – those opposing the zoning change were the first to speak, and they sent out one of their heavy hitters, former Town Moderator Mike Widmer (Precinct 5).

“I’ve never seen an issue with this scope come before Town Meeting with so many questions,” Widmer told the 140 members who attended in person, adding that “[n]o comparable town in Massachusetts has undertaken anything of this magnitude in such a concentrated geographic area.” 

Widmer said the main concern focused on the proposal’s financial viability, pointing to the analysis from three financial experts that a fully built-out district will produce, at best, modest revenue gains.

“If we delay, we might be able to develop a viable proposal that actually produces financial benefits in the short term,” he said. We owe it to the town to try to come together in the fall and approve a plan with reduced scale and questions answered.” 

One area of the opponent’s concern was the impact of increased housing and retail development on the Center’s parking and traffic. Larry Lenk (Precinct 1), a former member of the town’s Transportation Advisory Committee, focused on cars, saying it was highly unlikely that only a third of those living in the new residential units, at 500 units and 750 new residents, would own a vehicle. He envisions 400 residents’ vehicles and about 1,000 additional cars driven by employees of new retail under the new zoning.

“The only real place for parking the excess cars will be the two to three residential blocks surrounding this new village,” said Lenk. 

A vote for a win, win, win, win

Supporters argued the status quo or a watered-down overlay plan would condemn Belmont Center to limited to no growth potential for years to come. Rachel Heller (Precinct 3) said the district proposal placed in front of the members was “a win, win, win and actually a fourth win”: for housing production – “the number one issue in the state”- as it provides a range of options including for downsizing elders wanting to stay in town; reliable foot traffic for the new Center businesses; a magnet for state grants to improve infrastructure as state goverment provide funding to towns with growing mix-use developments; and a win for Belmont to stay in the drivers seat by achieving the 10 percent affordable housing threshold on the Subsidized Housing Inventory to prevent “unfriendly” 40B projects. 

Travis Frank (Precinct 5) said those seeking a delay to rightsize the overlay’s size, finances, and traffic and parking plans, which often means a smaller proposal. 

“But my understanding is that as we reduce scale, we reduce our revenue. And my principal interest is to help the fiscal budget of the town,” said Frank, noting over the past year and two months the original proposal, “we have already reduced it to the point where now … there are estimates that we have really small financial benefits. “This is our one opportunity [at financial rewards], and I’d rather go big or go home … to actually change the ratio of residential vs. commercial tax revenue.”

The decision on Article 2 was foretold in the procedural amendment to indefinitely postpone the plan, going down 121-145-3, showing – by a narrow margin – that pro-growth would carry the night. 

Thursday’s vote – with barely 120 members in attendance of the 260 attending – on Article 3, dubbed the Center Gateway Overlay, which was designed to allow one of three types of hotels: boutique-style hotels of 26 and 100 rooms and a business class operation with 150 rooms. Ryan said while the three parcels east up Concord Avenue from the US Postal Service building could be developed into commercial or senior living, a hotel was preferable as it is a “triple threat” for town revenue – room, meals, and property taxes.

Opponents said the parcel area being proposed was far too small to develop a hotel and expressed concerns about the necessary parking for employees and guests. They also argued that a 70 percent occupancy rate was highly unlikely, as there’s nothing interesting nearby that would attract travelers.

But supporters argued that it was not the role of Town Meeting to determine the financial viability of the site. It would be hotel investors and developers who would make that decision. Town Meeting “job” was only to open the door for any interested party. The measure was passed by more than the necessary two-thirds margin, 196-52-8.

Yates said the Town and Planning Board should follow the script that proved successful in Belmont Center with the upcoming zoning changes . “So I think the same thing will apply elsewhere. The more more people learn, the more they like it and because, and part of that is because we have a really good Town Planner and a really good Planning Board, and they do really good work.”

Belmont Center Overlay Vote Pushed To 2026, Planning Board Cites Data Delay For Set Back

By Leave a Comment

Photo: Map of the zoning overlay district for Belmont Center

A Town Meeting vote on the proposed Belmont Center Zoning Overlay Plan will likely be pushed back into the new year, as the Belmont Planning Board indicated it will miss a self-imposed drop-dead date to approve or reject the plan that aims to ramp up residential and commercial activity in Belmont’s main business center.

“I feel we are not going to meet [the Planning Board’s] required deadline for the fall Town Meeting,” said Planning Board Chair Thayer Donham, who ran the Thursday, Sept. 18 morning meeting virtually from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.

This delay marks the second time the proposal has been postponed, having been tentatively scheduled from the annual Town Meeting in May to the Special Town Meeting in October.

The proposed overlay acts as a second set of rules added to the underlying zoning along Leonard Street and Concord Avenue along and Concord Avenue from the commuter rail tunnel and the land west of Harris Field. The town’s Select Board is advancing the overlay with several goals in mind, including improving municipal finances, revitalizing the business center, and creating more and a greater variety of housing options.

Saying she was eager to wrap up the zoning process, Donham indicated the board was anxious to have an all-important parking study conducted before a final vote on the zoning overlay in the coming week.

Belmont’s Town Planner Chris Ryan told the Board he was still waiting for the draft parking report to be delivered by the Boston office of Desman, which missed the initial due date of Sept. 8. In fact, “there were several milestones missed this week,” said Ryan. A traffic analysis by the town’s consultant, The BSC Group, is not expected until the end of the month.

“I feel we are not going to be able to meet the required deadline,” said Donham. “We want to continue our thoughtful process of hearing from people, and parking is a concern we’ve been hearing about for months. We don’t think we can make a parking decision without the report.”

After a short roundtable discussion, Planning Board members each agreed with Donham that the board could not make a recommendation without the critical data on hand and without a legal reading of the results by Town Counsel.

“I don’t see how we can vote on the zoning overlay [on Sept. 25] without this data,” said Donham. “We’re trying to get all the information needed and vetted, and here we are, a week before we’re required to get to take a vote, and we don’t have a major piece of information.”

“We’re essentially running out of time, and given the delays in getting this information and the request we’ve gotten from everybody to look at this specifically,” said the Planning Board’s Alisa Garner-Todreas. “It feels like we need more time, possibly a February special Town Meeting, and that would be a better deadline for us to cross the t’s and dot the i’s.”

The Zoning Overlay proposal has had a rough row to hoe from the very first public meeting in March, when nearby residents and business owners opposed what they believed was an invitation for large development that would overtax the existing infrastructure. By a June public meeting, resistance to the plan had remained, and there was some talk, even by some board members, that data gathering, anticipated changes to the plan, and a needed public relations effort could not be completed to allow the plan to be presented to the Special Town Meeting. Yet at its latest meeting, the Select Board appeared confident the overlay measure would be before the Special Town Meeting and would receive a favorable vote.

It now appears the Select Board has little option but to remove the Zoning Override from the Special Town Meeting Warrant that is required to be voted on at its Sept. 29 meeting.

Parking in Belmont Center will be front and center the next day. on Tuesday, Sept. 30, when the Select Board, the Planning Board, and the Traffic Advisory Committee hold a joint meeting on parking and transportation in Belmont Center. “I think that is just the big public discussion that is necessary to finalize any zoning,” said Donham.

First Look: Hotels in Belmont Center? Well, It Could In Latest Overlay District Draft

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The “new” Belmont Center? (all images: Able.City)

A hotel in the heart of Belmont Center? Or one across Concord Avenue from the new library? How about a series of three-and-a-half story residential and retail buildings hugging Leonard Street and Claflin Street where the municipal parking lot currently is located?

Presented to the Planning Board’s Tuesday, March 11 meeting was a series of architectural drawings picturing the latest aspirational version of the future of Belmont’s business and retail center if the annual Town Meeting passes this latest draft incarnation of the Belmont Center Overlay District

As one observer said after the meeting, “This isn’t want will be, rather, what it could be.”

The night’s highlight was a first draft “look-see” from consulting firm Able.City just how a proposed overlay district would transform Belmont Center from its current tired 60s traffic-based facade into a mix of Tudor- and Colonial-styled multi-story housing and storefronts that comes right out of the New Urbanism playbook.

Able.City’s leading philosophy and design ethic in rebuilding the center is that “the street is very important. The public realm is very important,” said Belmont Planner Chris Ryan. “There is a mix of uses, integrated of natural features, the consideration of neighborhoods, possible introduction of parks … definitely providing additional density, shopping opportunities and preserving building that need preserving.”

The district encompasses Leonard Street, Claflin Street, the Parking lot, the land opposite Town Hall, and the stretch of Concord Avenue beyond the commuter rail tunnel adjacent to the US Postal Service office and across from the new Public Library now under construction.

The Overlay District establishes five form-based districts (FB1 to FB5) based on location, with their own characteristics, such as how structures look, height restrictions, and frontage standards. An example: Known as the General Zone, FB2 encompasses the west side of Leonard Street and Concord Avenue adjacent to the commuter rail tracks. Its role is to transition the adjacent residential neighborhoods with the main commercial business area with buildings 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 stories tall with a maximum height of 48 feet.

Ryan presented the meeting with a series of renderings of the new center, showing Leonard Street with a stretch of tall mixed-use buildings, noting that the proposed heights on the street’s west side are not as high as previously cited. 

Claflin Street looking towards Channing Road

The slides showed a complete transformation of the Claflin Parking Lot – known as the home of the Belmont Farmers Market – into “a second main street” consisting of a new retail/residential hub with a “structured parking deck” that would “wrap around the development and hidden in the back.” It would also include a four-story residential building near the intersection of Channing Road.

The development of the Claflin lot would likely require Claflin and Leonard to become one-way streets, creating a “round-about” for the center 

Ryan did clarify that the consultants and the board “haven’t decided at this point whether we may want to go ahead and include the Claflin lot [for a vote at Town Meeting].”

Some questions still need to be answered, such as how much additional square footage each new structure will add to the center and the need for new parking to accommodate the new supply of business and housing. 

“Obviously, both the Claflin lot and the Locatelli Properties lot (the parking adjacent to the back of the retail/office buildings located on Leonard Street) are very important in terms of decisions that the board needs to make … of what we go forward [to present to Town Meeting] in May,” said Ryan.

Yates expressed his unease with the current overlay design on parking. “I did not walk away with a really clearunderstanding for how we were going to make parking work [in a redesigned] Center,” said Yates. Ryan said a solution will come by first making a “complete inventory” of parking there today while seeking opportunities, such as “expansion of street parking … beyond the district” and parking opportunity districts. Also known as parking benefit districts, they are specified areas in the center where the parking revenues raised are reinvested back into the district for a wide range of transportation-related improvements.

Thayer Donham warned her fellow board members that “without having an integral parking plan that goes along with the [overlay district], it will not pass Town Meeting. 

The five districts each have a consultant-created “use table” – outlining what uses are permitted within each zoning district – and also grants uses not currently allowed in the town’s bylaws. One such use, it turns out, is hotels.

Hotels and other lodging units have been a priority of many, including economic development advocates and those promoting commercial real estate, such as Belmont Select Board Chair Elizabeth Dionne, who has called hotels “low-hanging fruit,” as each pays multiple fees and taxes on parking, meals, and real property. It is no secret the town is attempting to work with the Tosi family, who own five acres along Hittinger and Brighton streets, to locate a hotel on the property. 

Despite several half-hearted attempts in the past, town officials never got around to including a hotel bylaw in the zoning book. And because the town lacks rules on lodging structures, the Able.City’s “use table” permits hotels “by right” in the FB4 and 5 zoning areas, including the Claflin Parking lot and Concord Avenue.

When Yates asked if the use table would override the overall existing zoning, Ryan replied, “Then it would, probably be, yes.” Ryan added that many towns surrounding Belmont have special sections in their zoning books for particular uses like hotels which “flesh out some additional requirements” such as room count and parking numbers.

Belmont actually has a proposed hotel bylaw in the works. Yates revealed that he, Ryan, and the Planning Board’s Associate member Andy Osburn had initiated work that would allow hotels and Bed & Breakfasts “by-right” in all business districts, defining types of lodging (i.e., what is a boutique hotel) while proposing to “relax parking requirements” for hotels. Yates said the group had to pause their efforts due to a deluge of competing demands that “overwhelmed us,” such as work to pass the MBTA Communities Act and the Accessory Units bylaw.

The board will want restrictions on any “by-right” hotels in the overlay district. “Hotels, in general, have been a very popular point of discussion. But there’s been a lot of conservation about, should they be boutique? Should we have 200 rooms” said the board’s Carol Berberian. “I think that as long as there are some standards in place, it’ll just give us an idea of what to expect.” 

At the latest public meeting in February, many in attendance and online were supportive of that first overlay draft with the hope that greater development will increase the percentage of commercial real estate coming to the town’s coffers to ease the property taxes on residential homeowners, and the need of an operational override.

Yet stubborn opposition to the current overlay plan continues from residents who live adjacent to the center, those concerned about traffic impact from new housing and businesses, and notably from the chair of the Belmont Center Association and long-time Center business owner, Deran Muckjian, who at past meeting question the financial viability of developing at the proposed scale. 

“It’s kind of sad that the town is moving forward with [the overlay district] without listening to the local businesses in town who have so much at stake,” said Muckjian.

An updated draft, with comments from the Planning Board and its staff included, will be presented in a public meeting tentatively scheduled for April 10, a month before the Town Meeting vote.

Breaking: Property Owner Eyes Building 225 Apartments At Purecoat Site On Hittinger St.

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Purecoat North site which the owner the Tosi family hopes to build 225 apartment units on the three acre site adjacent Hittinger Street and Brighton Avenue.

The property owner of the Purecoat North Plating manufacturing site on Hittinger Street and a dog daycare business facing Brighton Street in east Belmont has presented to the town a preliminary design to redevelop the 126,726 square foot parcel into a 225 unit apartment complex with four floors of residential units above street level retail stores.

“I think we have a bonifide offer to proceed with a very major investment in Purecoat by the owner of Purecoat,” said Select Board member Roy Epstein. Under this redevelopment “scheme”, the property tax on the site will increase “by a factor of 10.”

While details – revealed at Monday’s Select Board meeting – remain vague, the Tosi family from Belmont who own the property approached Town officials in June with its plans to transform the three acre location into the largest mixed use development in Belmont’s history. In comparison, the Bradford complex in Cushing Square that opened in 2019 has half the number of units as what being proposed on Hittinger and Brighton streets.

One detail that has emerged is for two thirds of the complex, or 150 units, to be two-bedroom suites with the remaining units single bedrooms and studios.

More details are expected when the Planning Board meets on Tuesday, July 23.

The sites, currently occupied by Purecoat and the dog daycare business Crate Escape, are located adjacent the driveway to Belmont Middle and High School and across Hittinger from a residential neighborhood. The site also fronts Brighton Street at the corner with Flanders Road and runs along the commuter rail tracks.

The Tosi’s have told Epstein the project is conditional on being a by-right development, which means that the town’s planning staff or the Planning Board cannot deny the project as long as the proposal meets the criteria of the the Zoning Bylaw. While a by-right project means the project will require no waivers, special permits, or any other approvals, it’s still required to go through the normal development processes including Site Plan Review and the regular building permitting approvals.

The parcels are zoned as “General Business” which allow developer much greater leeway to build the complex they envision, a proposition that promoted Select Board Chair Elizabeth Dionne to say that the Tosi family “has the town over a barrel.” Dionne criticised the proposal as a long-term money loser for the town as it will increase the cost of town services, a jump in traffic, and an unknown increase in student enrollment in the public school district.

“No, we make money, this is cash-flow positive,” said Epstein.

It took Town Administrator Patrice Garvin to end the verbal tit for tat by saying the town is currently working with the Tosi family “to run some numbers” on the project’s revenue and expenses.

“We want to get the information to the Planning Board to really see what this project means,” said Garvin.

If the town or the Planning Board pushes back on the Tosi demands, the family is said to have made an old chestnut of a threat. “If it [isn’t] by-right, he’s making money [as a plating manufactor] and they’ll just leave it and nothing will happen,” said Epstein.

The parcels possible development is a blow to a number of town officials and residents who sees the location as a hub for commercial development. In fact, during its recent review of maps during the MBTA Communities Act discussion to determine areas to change zoning requirements to permit greater opportunities to develop multiunit housing, the Planning Board removed the Purecoat site for consideration for residential projects, replacing it with an area along Belmont Street near the Cambridge city line.

That decision by the Planning Board is being seen as one reason the Select Board in a 2-1 decision not to reappoint Planning Board Chair Jeffrey Birenbaum, to his role leading the five-member group, a move that surprised many in town.

In the past decade and a half, the town had been interested in the property for various projects. The Tosi family rejected a $6 million offer in 2011 to allow the construction of a Belmont Light substation. The station would eventually end up on Flanders Road. In 2019, a 60-day negotiation period between the town and the Tosi family failed to secure the ownership of the property or create an easement to allow the community bike path to run along the south side of the tracks. The path is now proceeding along the northside of the commuter line.

Belmont Woman’s Club Free To Manage Its 11 Parking Spaces As It Deems Fit

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Homer House’s parking spaces.

In a split decision, the Belmont Planning Board voted to allow the Belmont Woman’s Club to manage “on their own” the 10 parking spaces and single handicapped space located at the historic Homer House across from Belmont Town Hall at 661 Pleasant St.

“I believe it’s the Woman’s Club property [and] they should be able to manage that parking spaces as they wish,” said Planning Board Chair Jeffrey Birenbaum. He called the decision a “minor modification” to the former parking lot use plan approved by the Planning Board in July 2021 which restricted the lot’s use “to Women’s Club activities and functions.”

The new language states that parking “to allowed the Belmont Women’s Club to utilize their on-site 10 parking spaces plus one handicapped for them to handle.” If any problems arise with the change in status, the Club would be required to meet with the Building Department and later with the Planning Board.

Daytime parking at the Town Hall lot – which includes the School Administrative building and several town departments in the Homer Building and Town Hall – is currently a tight fit. When the lot is full, visitors and staff are required to use on-street parking – which has time restrictions – or travel to the municipal parking lot on Claflin Street.

And it appears the Woman’s Club spaces may have an interested party to claim the lot. Town Planner Chris Ryan said he had conversations with Town Administrator Patrice Garvin expressing that “it would be fine to have town staff parking there,” albeit a memorandum of understanding would need to be negotiated to identify any possible issues, a stipulation the Club’s President Wendy Murphy said would be “very easily” completed.

“I think one of the concerns that [residents] had was some of the town staff were parking on the sides of the driveway,” said Ara Yogurtian, the Planning Board’s staff member, who advised writing in the decision and MOU that parking can only occur in the designated spaces.

Yet the decision was not unanimous. Planning Board Member Thayer Donham reminded the board that “we had a lot of meetings on this case and … a lot of history to get to the original decision.” Donham believes that a new shared parking use should not be granted unless the club returned to the Planning Board with a new application.

“I just don’t feel comfortable overturning it,” said Donham, who was the sole “no” vote in the 3-1 decision.

But Birenbaum, noting the town bylaws does speak on accessory use of shared parking spaces including a lot used by town departments.

“I don’t think what I’ve read … that we need to come down with a hard hammer and say they need special permits or they can’t use their lot.”

Belmont Hill School’s Revamped Parking Plan Finds Support From Former Critics, But Many Remain Troubled

By 1 Comment

Photo: The location of the proposed parking lot of the Belmont Hill School

Last fall, Tanya Austin was not at all happy with what the Belmont Hill School was proposing adjacent to her property line. As one of the closest abutters to a new parking development off Park Avenue, the Rutledge Road resident had become one of the leading opponents to the 150-space parking lot, which would include a 7,000 sq. ft. facilities structure while formalizing parking at the school and near the athletic complex on Marsh Street.

“The area is one of the few remaining open, wooded spaces in Belmont, and our town should be committing to the long-term preservation of our environment rather than to fulfillment of the short-term wants of the Belmont Hill School,” said Austin in November. “Our petition has 2,000 signatures [showing] how widespread people’s interest is in opposing this project.”

Fast forward to this week, Austin and two other homeowners who were the project’s closest abutters are now expressing their support of a “modified” updated parking plan, much to the disappointment of many who have lambasted the private school for its plan to raze the native landscape to pave the land to put up a parking lot. After a series of meetings with the school facilitated by Mark Paolillo, chair of the Select Board, and Town Administrator Patrice Garvin, “I’m satisfied with the outcome of our negotiations,” said Austin.

The agreement by the three nearest abutting homeowners – Austin and her neighbor on Rutland and a resident whose property will be adjacent to the facilities building – came as the school presented its “modified” proposal before the Planning Board on Tuesday, Feb. 7, as the board restarts the design site plan review process that originally started in October 2022.

“This might have been different if this were a request for a special permit but based on my conversation with town council for a design site plan review, it is more of an administrative hearing … the requirements are less formal,” said Matthew Lowrie, chair of the Planning Board.

The development will occur on a total of 7.1 acres of which one acre is paved, 4.8 acres are woodlands and the remaining lawns and gardens. Under the development plans, 1.7 acres will be cleared and 1.2 acres used as parking with half-an-acre landscaped.

Primarily a day school, 437 of the school’s 464 pupils commute daily from 84 communities across New England; a new parking scheme will allow the school to manage its long-term parking goals better. The revised plan is essentially a tweaking of the original blueprints presented in the fall of 2022. Released this week, the major modifications include:

  • Removing the proposed outdoor above-ground fuel storage tanks at the facilities building.
  • Shifting the parking lot layout to increase the distance from the closest abutters.
  • Moving the fence between the parking lot and the property line; no closer than five feet from the pavement.
  • Relocating the facilities building further away from an adjacent property, reducing the number of parking spaces by three.
  • Adding additional plantings to reduce visual and environmental impact.

Those changes were enough for three owners of the most impacted properties to change their opposition to the plan to voicing their support for the school’s project.

“Our goal was convincing the school to voluntarily take the steps we would have to argue before the board or a legal appeal,” said Austin. After a series of meetings with the school facilitated by Mark Paolillo, chair of the Select Board, and Town Administrator Patrice Garvin, Austin said that “I’m satisfied with the outcome of our negotiations as the increased setbacks would mean less disturbance of wildlife and “to at least try to preserve the character of the area.”

While the proposal has restarted, the school has moved forward with peer review of the development – paying for outside professionals to appraise the school’s design – to determine the impact a finished project will have on parking, lightning, waste water drainage and other issues the Planning Board will oversee in the design site review. The school also has the Belmont Animal Control Officer confirm there are no endangered species occupying the land.

Critics at Tuesday’s meeting reiterated points made earlier that the project would result in the destruction of wildlife habitat and century-old trees on some of the last significant parcels of undeveloped land in the Belmont Hill neighborhood. Campaigners have gathered approximately 2,500 signatories on a petition opposing the project and have sent nearly 100 letters and emails to the Planning Board against the school’s plans.

One thousand residents who signed a petition in 2022 in opposition to the Belmont Hill School parking project.

Residents who have spoken out against the plan are facing difficult legal hurdles in their efforts to halt the development. The first obstacle is the school’s use of parking and the facilities structure are allowed under the town’s zoning bylaw in Single Residence District A. The town simply requires site review approval rather than than the more stringent special permit for a non residential building of more than 2,500 sq.-ft. and the creation of more than six parking spaces.

The second is a state law that limits communities from hindering certain developments. When a resident asked during a recent Select Board meeting how can the school proceed to build on the property, Board member Adam Dash bluntly said “The Dover Amendment.” The Massachusetts General Law hampers communities from restricting construction for agricultural, religious, and educational uses.

Belmont has its own rich experience with the law as it was instrumental in the approval of the opening of the Church of Latter-Day Saints’ Belmont temple in 2001. Lowrie noted Belmont Town Counsel George Hall has written an advisory saying the board would be in violation of the Dover Amendment if it attempted to deny the school’s application by demanding Belmont Hill first look to its main campus to accommodate the vehicles or for it to determine the number of parking spaces that are for “educational use.” Calculating the school’s supposed parking need was a deep dive by project critic Matthew Schwartz who determined the school could easily eliminate half the lot and still meet its educational needs.

In a new challenge to the project, residents with some support from the Select Board are increasingly calling for the project to undergo a Development Impact Report which is allowed in the zoning bylaws. Under a DIR, the Planning Board would determine the scope of the report including environment, social, physical and infrastructure impact, than issue a Request For Proposal that a professional development team would perform. The team would than produce an in-depth review for the Planning Board to review.

But according to Lowrie, the process is less than ideal, noting that in the past three decades, a DIR was not requested for major town developments such as the Middle and High School, the Senior Center, and several McLean parcels.

“What’s the difference between Development Impact Reports and what we’ve been doing instead which is peer reviews? Spoiler alert, the peer review is a better process,” said Lowrie.

According to Glenn Clancy, the head of the town’s Office of Community Development, the DIR is less flexible than a peer review – who are selected by his department – which can alter the review’s scope on the fly which assists in resolving conflicts between developers and the the town. Also, the cost for a peer review is picked up by the developer. Additionally, while the town can ask a developer to pay for a DIR, it may not be permissible under the Dover Amendment.

“What would a DIR add? Certainly delay,” said Lowrie, noting that the DIR “doesn’t authorize anything that can’t be done in the peer review process,” a view Clancy seconded.

“I believe professional engineering design, peer review, and compliance with section 5 has allowed the Planning Board to achieve the same purpose as if utilizing the Development Impact Report process … I think by de facto you guys are already operating under a DIR process. It’s just not specifically by that name,” said Clancy.

The parking project will return before the Planning Board on Tuesday, Feb. 14 at 7 p.m. with an emphasis on landscaping and the current tree layout.

With Chair’s Departure, Planning Board Left Short And Belmont Hill School Parking Project Delayed

By 2 Comments

Photo:

A few weeks ago, Planning Board’s Vice Chair Matthew Lowrie had just finished writing his resignation letter from the board. The longtime Belmont resident was preparing to move from the Town of Homes “in the not so distant future” and wanted to provide the board’s chair, Steve Pinkerton, time to fill his post on a committee facing a heavy agenda for the year ahead.

But as Lowrie prepared to press ”send” on his letter, “a funny coincidence occurred,” as he noticed an email from Pinkerton. The subject of that correspondence: Pinkerton’s own resignation.

Pinkerton’s sudden resignation along with Lowrie’s pending departure has highlighted the shortage of members and has brought to a halt a proposal by the Belmont Hill School to install a parking lot and facilities building near its central campus that was going before the board for a vote at the Planning Board’s Oct. 11 meeting.

Lowrie said Pinkerton had ”very good reasons” to leave his post on the board which he has led for the past two years with ”[grace] and aplomb,” noting his leadership as ”one of the real drivers” in changing town bylaws to address the trend of “supersizing” residential properties.

With Pinkerton’s departure, Lowrie has decided to step into the chair role – “we’ll see for how long” – until new members are appointed to allow the board to move forward with some semblance of continuity.

With so many changes over the past weeks, the proposal by the Belmont Hill School to add to and revamp its campus parking got caught up in the board’s turmoil.

“I think we’re highlighting that we’re in a little bit of a tenuous place at the moment,” Lowrie told the Zoom audience.

The parking plan – made up of a new parking lot and Facilities Building on land east of Prospect Street, a more formalized parking area adjacent to the Athletic Center and redesign of existing parking and drop off site at the front of the school at Prospect and Marsh streets – has received “a lot of input from abutters and others,” said Lowrie, noting that a greater number of participants were attending via Zoom.

The delayed vote was to begin the design site review, which requires three ‘yes’ votes to proceed. The site plan review process provides a level of review that ensures the project will meet development policies and regulations as defined in the town’s bylaws as well as design practices that are commonly accepted within the community.

With Pinkerton resignation, member Karl Haglund not at Tuesday’s meeting and member Renee Guo recusing herself from the process, the school would need to receive an unanimous vote from the remaining three members to move the project forward.

While that was likely, the board and the town began talks with the school to withdraw the application for the time being to “let us get our planning board back in order” said Lowrie with the Select Board adding at least one full-time member in the next weeks.

“Do you think it would be cleaner and neater if you were to withdraw?” Lowrie asked Kelly Durfee Cardoza, a principal of the Avalon Consulting Group who was representing the school at the meeting. “I don’t see it in anybody’s best interest for there to be a vulnerability to whatever decision we reach based on the composition of the planning board,” he said.

Cardoza told the board that while the school wished to proceed with the review vote rather than having to wait an undetermined amount of time, Lowrie’s suggestion along with the board’s assurances that the delay would be a short one, the school will withdraw the current application without prejudice to refiling at the board’s next meeting on Oct. 18.

The next step is to seat a full-time member and be prepared to once again accept the school’s plan in the first weeks of November.

“Sounds like a plan,” said Lowrie.

New Rink Committee In Sprint To Meet Aug. 1 Deadline; Public Meetings Set For July 14, 20

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The design of the new municipal rink (The Galante Architecture Studio)

While the majority of building committees’ work resemble a long-distance race, the newly-formed Municipal Skating Rink Building Committee is like watching Usain Bolt in full flight as the 12-member committee attempts to sprint the project onto the Nov. 8 ballot.

Facing a list of tasks that would make Hercules blush, the committee is seeking to create a completed design of the structure, a plan to revamp the fields and manage parking while coming up with a detail price tag for the entire project, all of it done in less than a month.

”We have 25 calendar days to meet our [Aug. 1] deadline,” Committee Chair Mark Haley said at the committee’s Wednesday, July 6 meeting that focused on the latest project feasibility study. And during that compressed interval, the committee is looking to introduce the project to residents.

That part of the plan starts with a pair of public meetings – on Thursday, July 14 and Wednesday, July 20, sandwiched between critical joint meetings of the Select Board and School Committee on July 18 and an informational get-together with the Planning Board on July 19. The meeting on Bastille Day will be dedicated to the rink design, while the 20th will highlight parking and the three playing surfaces ”west of Harris Field.”

The committee has been meeting weekly almost since it was created on June 13 during Town Meeting and will continue through July with the specific goal of having a debt exclusion ballot question to fund the rink before voters in November. The rush is required as the Select Board faces an August 1 deadline to make a final decision on debt exclusion measures to Belmont Town Clerk Ellen Cushman who will seek state approval to place any on the general election ballot.

And while the committee could present what it hopes is a complete package, that November vote is far from a certainty as all that work will need to come up to scratch by the expectations of the Select Board.

“It may be very difficult to meet that next timeline … because there’s a lot that needs to happen between now and Aug. 1,” said Mark Paolillo, the board’s chair, pointing to a volumes of recommendations it must produce to the Select Board and School Committee to meet its mandate.

”I’m just suggesting that, perhaps, it could be challenging,” said Paolillo.

As of the July 6 meeting, the rink design is fairly straight forward with architect Ted Galante using the steel skeleton of the existing structure, more detailed – but not yet finalized – design with the building expanding more in the front and the rear with the programs enclosed with the building creeping closer to Harris Field bleachers in an attempt not to impact the fields and eliminate a small alleyway between the two structures.

Take a peak at the July 6 municipal rink feasibility study here

Galante of The Galante Architecture Studio brought to the July 6 meeting a blueprint that severed the project into two parts with the majority of the program – the rink, community room, restrooms, hockey locker rooms – to be built in a first phase with the Harris Field locker rooms for fall and spring sports left for a later date with separate funding.

The dual construction phasing was quickly scuttled by the committee. “If it’s not done now, it will never happen,” said Ann Marie Mahoney. “It needs to be a complete project” brought before the Select Board and the public.

The full range of locker rooms are necessary as the new Middle and High School only has two full-scale locker rooms, for boys’ and girls’ varsity a limit imposed by the Massachusetts School Building Authority in its partnership with the town. According to Superintendent John Phelan who met with Haley and School Committee Chair Meg Moriarty the day before, the four lockers at the rink will barely meet the demands of the school’s athletic teams.

While the design is moving forward, the west fields and just how much parking is proving to be stickier issues to resolve. The fields as well as the parking component were “inherited” by the rink committee when they were orphaned by the Belmont Middle and High School Building Committee which abandoned the fields and the associated parking from its original plan to reallocate $5 million to its contingency funds.

“This complicates the picture,” said Tom Gatzunis, the committee’s owners project manager, with the committee forced to add the scope of the fields and the need for parking under its watch with a substantial increase to the building’s price tag and complexity.

With the BMHSBC washing its hands of West of Harris Field, the need for 120 parking spaces negotiated with the Planning Board more than four years ago has been taken off the board. With the ability to start anew, Galante said earlier analysis of the rink revealed a demand for 88 spaces on game days. Galante’s current intention is to utilize the ”jug handle” parking across Concord Avenue from the Underwood Pool along with new spaces where the White Field House currently sits.

Members noted that parking will be “a very hot button issue” for neighbors as they fought hard to take vehicles off side streets. Frank French, Jr. pondered the idea the committee could simply leave parking the way it is currently with patrons and fans using on-street parking along Concord Avenue when using the rink. The committee believes it will have a more detailed parking plan by the time it meets with the Select Board and School Committee on July 18 and for a critical Planning Board meeting the next day.

With the elements of the project increased with the addition of the fields and parking, the price tag on the expanded rink has increased by a third from the first estimate in of $19 million, currently in a range between $28-$32 million. Dante Muzzioli said the project must come in below $30 million, a price point that, if that number was breeched, would prove difficult for residents to support.

“We are going to get one bite of the apple,” said Muzzioli.

The members of the new committee are chair Mark Haley, Dante Muzzioli, Anthony Ferrante, Stephen Sala, Frank French, Jr, Catherine Oakes, Megan Moriarty, Bill Shea, Tom Caputo, Dan Halston, Ann Marie Mahoney and Dynelle Long.

First Public Say On Tenative Retail Marijuana Regs June 19

By 4 Comments

Photo: Interior of a pot shop.

Planning Board Chair Charles Clark said while “very strong” arguments were made on both sides of the opt-out marijuana sales debate during Town Meeting earlier in the month, the cases for and against the article was limited to a small number of the members. 

Now, the board wants to hear from the rest of the town on what should be the “time, manner and place” of the first pot shops in Belmont.

At its Monday, May 14 meeting, Clark said the process of creating a new set of bylaws needs to begin soon.

“While it’s more than half a year away, it’s really just around the corner,” said Clark as the board released a draft schedule on writing the local ordinance ready to be enforced by the beginning of next year. 

“We want to hear a range of opinions” from the public on the placement and times of operation “which we didn’t hear the first time,” said Clark.

Scheduled for June 19 at the Beech Street Center to catch people before they leave town on summer vacation, the meeting will have the feel of the public “forum” rather than a more formal public hearing, said Town Planner Jeffrey Wheeler.

“We’ll ask, ‘Is this [regulation] good?’ Should [the stores] be placed in LB1 (business) zoning districts? We want to hear ideas,” said Clark. He said the board will also present data on how other towns are proceeding with establishing regulations and restrictions. 

Clark said the forum will be the first, but not last time the public will have their say on the matter. The board will be holding public meetings on the new “pot” zoning before the Special Election on Sept. 25, where voters will either approve or reject the opt-out article amended to only allow pot sales in town.

The proposed zoning bylaw on the wheres and whens of the stores will be before the fall Special Town Meeting starting Tuesday, Nov. 13. If passed by a two-thirds majority of the members, the regulations will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2019.

[Correction: An earlier version of the article indicated Special Town Meeting begins on Nov. 8. The Town Clerk has selected Nov. 13, a Tuesday, as the first night of the “Special.”]

Letter to the Editor: Planning Board Chaos Underscores Need for Accountability

By Leave a Comment

Photo: The Planning Board

To the editor:

And then there were three. With the unexpected resignations this week of former Planning Board Chairwoman Liz Allison and Board member Barbara Fiacco, Belmont’s Planning Board has been reduced to just three members, having lost half its members to resignation in the past month – all three under clouds of controversy. 

The unraveling of this critical body as major projects, like Cushing Village, demand attention and others like Belmont High School loom poses a serious challenge to the Town’s leadership. It also offers a powerful argument in favor of a motion I have put before Town Meeting on Nov. 13 that will bring accountability and order to Planning Board by letting the town’s voters choose its members, as 35 of 39 other towns in Middlesex county already do.

For those readers who are hearing about this for the first time, I’ve taken the opportunity to answer some “frequently asked questions”. I hope this help inform you about this important, citizen-driven initiative. 

Why are you doing this? 

Amending our bylaws to have voters elect our Planning Board will bring transparency, accountability, and professionalism to a critical body whose jurisdiction extends to every private home and commercial property in town. Popular election of Planning Board will give voters the opportunity to evaluate all candidates for open positions on the Planning Board and to choose those who are best qualified and suited to represent the community’s interests. 

This critical change to our bylaws will also bring Planning Board in line with our Town’s other administrative boards and committees, namely: Selectmen, School Committee, Board of Assessors, Board of Library Trustees and the Board of Health, members of which are all elected by voters.

Do other communities elect their Planning Boards? 

Yes. If we consider Middlesex County of which we are a part, 35 of 39 (or 90 percent) of communities with Belmont’s form of government like Newton, Cambridge, Lowell, Somerville have opted for popularly elected Planning Boards. This list includes Winchester, Lexington, Lincoln, Sudbury, Weston, Natick, Sherborn, Stoneham, Wakefield, Westford, Holliston, Hopkinton, and on and on. Belmont is one of just four that still have Planning Boards that are appointed by the Board of Selectmen.  

Why Planning Board? Why now? 

Planning Board is one of the most critical public bodies in our town. It helps shape the town through its decisions concerning both residential and commercial development and has the power to shape public and private spaces within a town.  As it stands, however, there is no mechanism in Belmont’s bylaws to ensure that Planning Board is accountable to voters and the public in any way. This is a critical omission in Belmont’s bylaws that has directly contributed to the erratic and damaging behavior of our Planning Board in recent months. 

If elected, won’t Planning Board start kowtowing to voters instead of being independent?

Of course not. Elected Planning Board members, like other elected officials, will be expected to think independently and to use their best judgment and make decisions that they feel are in the best interest of the whole community. That’s no different than what we expect of appointed officials. 

Let’s face it: Planning Board is an unpaid, volunteer position. Election to Planning Board is no more likely to engender self-serving, short-term decision making by members than an election to other unpaid positions like Town Meeting or School Committee. Consider: the punishment for losing re-election to Planning Board for a decision that voters disagree with is that the individual is forced to volunteer less. That’s hardly the kind of punishment that will have members betraying their values and common sense.  

What’s wrong with an appointed Board? 

It is critical that voters in Belmont have a means to express their preferences for Planning Board as they do for other administrative bodies like School Committee or the Selectmen themselves.  Under our current bylaws, they do not. 

Consider: it is the Selectmen, not the public, who receive and review applications from community members who are interested in a seat on the Planning Board. Voters in Belmont are not privy to who has applied for open seats or their qualifications, nor are they given the benefit of the Board of Selectmen’s reasons for eliminating any particular candidate or ultimately appointing one over another. Yes, voters may appeal to the Board to choose a specific candidate, assuming they even know who has applied, but the Selectmen are under no obligation to heed the voters. 

Don’t we affect Planning Board with our choice of Selectman?  

It might be argued that voters can express their Planning Board preferences in their vote for a Selectman. As a practical matter, however, this never happens. Planning Board appointments are not an issue in Board of Selectman races nor have promised appointments been deciding factors – or even talking points – in selectman races. Our bylaws left unchanged will continue to shield the selection, decisions, and actions of the Planning Board from voters and any accountability. 

I hope you will support this citizen-driven effort to make an important change to Belmont’s bylaws and inject democratic accountability to this critical body. I urge you to contact Town Meeting members from your precinct and ask them to support the Planning Board article. 

Paul Roberts

Town Meeting Member, Precinct 8