Editor’s note: This opinion piece first appeared on Judith’s website, If I May, which can be found at jfeinleibifimay.com.
In November, Belmont voted positively on 3A, the first phase of zoning revision being forced on the town and 176 other Boston area municipalities by the state in an effort to increase housing. 3A requires multifamily dwellings that are built by right in specific areas of town. The majority of these buildings must be located in and around Belmont’s two commuter rail stations ― Belmont Center and Waverley ― with one of the stations required to have more than 50% of the zoning; Belmont has designated Waverley. Buildings in the commuter rail station areas can be at least as tall as those of Cushing Square’s Bradford development.
Because of state rules defining “contiguity,” a fancy word for specific kinds of connection, Belmont did not have the option of designating existing areas that might be suitable for multiple family dwellings regardless of location, something I explained to a constituent moments before I left for the first November Town Meeting. Absent approval, the state would have been at liberty to deny the town funds, take the town to court and could even
have appointed a “special master” to create a 3A district and compel Belmont to use it. As Belmont moves forward, one of the most critical issues it faces, is how to increase
commercial development even as it obeys the requirements imposed on it by the state’s
one size fits all law. Why is this an issue?
Belmont depends on the residential property tax for funding. In other words, because it
does not have the commercial base of cities and towns such as Watertown and Lexington,
it does not benefit from the property taxes these entities pay and it is unable to provide robust services to the community with any degree of ease; indeed, based on comments made by Warrant Committee members, Belmont’s finances are apparently in dismal shape. That means that adding more residential units built by right will necessarily increase the burden on Belmont’s citizens unless some way can be found to partially or completely offset this with funds obtained from property taxes paid by commercial
organizations.
This will be the case despite the fact that 3A does allow some areas where residential units can be placed on floors above commercial units since Belmont has relatively few locations that are suitable for commercial development. In addition, 3A areas do not, in and of themselves, provide sufficient commercial opportunities to offset the potential effects of the by right multifamily units that will be built within them.
Because of this, sites that can provide significant commercial opportunities need to be closely supervised by the town; that will be possible only if such sites are not be part of 3A and the by right development it imposes. Among the sites that have the potential to deliver the significant commercial development that the town needs so badly is the Purecoat property located on Brighton Street.
Which Comes First ― Purecoat or Belmont Center?
The Purecoat property is a sizable industrial site known to have hazardous waste below its surface. Its owners would like to develop it for residential and commercial use. Prior to the Town Meeting vote on 3A, they presented a plan to develop it as a 3A by right project and advocated for the site to be included in the 3A district.
While the state would require that the hazardous waste be remediated whether or not Purecoat was a 3A project, had it been in the 3A district, there would be no way to ensure that the owners would adhere to the plan that was presented to the town. In other words, the project could end up being bigger, more intrusive and more burdensome for Belmont and its residents than might be desirable. Thankfully, Town Meeting voted to avoid this by adopting 3A “Map 1,” which does not include the Purecoat property.
During the 3A discussion at the November Town Meeting, Town Meeting Members (TMMs) made it very clear that while they did not want Purecoat to be included in the 3A zoning, they did want to see it developed as quickly as possible so that the town could benefit from the income it is expected to generate. Given this, combined with the town’s dire financial circumstances, the expectation was that the Town would move forward with the Purecoat proposal soon after Town Meeting.
Instead, both the Select Board and at least some members of the Planning Board, most notably its Chair, Taylor Yates, have concentrated on development in Belmont Center; an article in the January 17th Belmont Voice suggests that a two – three year project to redo zoning in Belmont Center will be undertaken.
Although Select Board member Matt Taylor and Chair Yates (who is running for Select Board) have met with Purecoat owner, Lawrence Tosi, the Purecoat project appears to have been back-burnered. The meeting was neither announced nor has information about it been provided to the public.
How Is This Supposed to Work?
Typically, the Planning Board undertakes reviews as well as supervision of building projects. The Board consists of individuals who, once they have been appointed by the Select Board, are supposed to be completely independent of it or any other town elected or appointed official. While the Planning Board is assisted by the Town Planner and the Town Building Inspector, they are subordinate to and also report to the Planning Board. Neither the Select Board nor the Town Administrator are part of the process.
A notable example of the way this works occurred when what is now The Bradford was built. Starting as a proposal by Chris Starr for apartments and commercial entities to be called Cushing Square Village, the project was supervised by the Planning Board. This supervision continued when Starr was unable to obtain financing and as he engaged in the steps that led to an agreement with Toll Brothers, the company that ended up building and maintaining The Bradford.
While the town had more leverage than usual with respect to supervision because it owned a parking lot that was to be incorporated into the development, even after the lot had been sold, the Planning Board engaged in vigorous oversight of what was done. The Board was assisted by the Town Planner (the late Geoffrey Wheeler) in a subordinate position. Notably, neither the Select Board nor the Town Administrator were involved. Moreover, people did not think that there was any possibility that they might be either openly or behind the scenes.
Guaranteeing Tested Independent Processes
Why bring this up now? Because there is concern that the procedure which has served Belmont well may be altered such that Select Board members and/or the Town Administrator insert themselves ― openly or behind the scenes ― into what has been an independent process. The Purecoat meeting cited above necessarily exacerbates this concern.
Unfortunately, the time when Cushing Square Village/The Bradford was developed and no one doubted the independence of the Planning Board and the Town Planner is gone. Be this perception or reality, many Belmont citizens no longer trust Belmont’s governing institutions, in this case, those which affect commercial development.
Commercial development that will benefit Belmont is even more critical now that Belmont has conformed to the 3A legislation required by the state. To be truly successful, the process used to do this must be thought to be fair and transparent by the vast majority of the Belmont community. More, the people who carry out this process must be believed to be conforming to the rules that bind the boards and committees on which the serve.
A public declaration by all who could be perceived to be affecting commercial development in Belmont ― Select Board members, Planning Board members, the Town Administrator, the Town Planner ― that they will conform to traditional procedures that guarantee the independence of the Planning Board and the Town Planner, is an essential first step to restoring trust and making sure that the majority of Belmont’s citizens support the town’s development of commercial properties.