The Select Board expressed support Monday night for the fiscal analysis model the town is using as its basis for understanding the potential impact of the Belmont Center zoning overlay coming before Town Meeting this fall.
“Some of this is really uncertain, but I think we’re trying to show … in a good faith way, that it’s not a financial loser,” said Select Board Chair Matt Taylor.
Not all residents, however, feel the fiscal model accurately reflects the potential impact of the proposed zoning overlay and have questioned the assumptions used in its development. Under these more conservative assumptions, the overlay would generate less net revenue over time, and draw more school children to Belmont Center than the town projects. They also argue there is little demand for a hotel, which would be allowed under the new zoning.
“Everybody is trying to do the right thing,” former Town Moderator Mike Widmer said in an interview, noting all members of the Select Board campaigned on an economic development platform. “So they’re trying to do it, but there isn’t necessarily agreement on the numbers.”
Previous Coverage
The proposed overlay—which allows for increased building heights on Leonard Street, with plans for mixed-use development—stems from a 2008 report, “A Planning Vision for Belmont Center,” which recommended the overlay.
The proposed zoning allows for a base building height of 2 ½ stories, with a 3 ½ story maximum (through density bonuses) on the northwest side of Leonard Street, according to Director of Planning & Building Chris Ryan. On the southeast side, which includes shops such as CVS and The Toy Shop, Leonard Street would allow buildings zoned for a base of 3 stories, with a 4-story maximum. Town planners will use form-based zoning when creating the overlay, which provides guidelines on the physical design of any new development.
“I think that’s perfectly reasonable,” said Ryan. “It provides economic opportunity … and doesn’t create a schism between [sides of the street].”
In April, the proposed zoning change—which has been criticized by some in the business community and abutters—was nixed from Town Meeting to allow more time to gather data, particularly with respect to traffic and parking. Now, planning officials are preparing to bring it to a special Town Meeting on Oct. 20.
Addressing Disparity
According to officials, the goal of the overlay is to generate revenue and address the current 95% to 5% tax split between residential and commercial properties.
“Belmont Center is not the answer to our problems, but it is a first step,” said Select Board member Elizabeth Dionne.
In the intervening months, differences of opinion have resulted in different approaches to determining the fiscal impact of the overlay.
At full buildout, which suggests all zoning has been taken advantage of through development, the fiscal impact model projects an annual net positive revenue of $2 to $3 million, depending on one of 12 buildout scenarios. Those scenarios include buildouts with and without density bonuses using analyses from RKG—the town’s consultant— the Planning Department, and Precinct 7 Town Meeting member Ira Morgenstern.
Full buildout likely wouldn’t be the reality for as many as 20 to 30 years.
In their conversation Monday night, Select Board members emphasized partial buildout is the more likely outcome. Partial buildout, according to the fiscal model, could generate anywhere from $377,000 to $902,000 in net revenue. They also noted that under the recently approved MBTA 3A zoning, additional housing is already permitted by right. Select Board member Taylor Yates said 279 units are already zoned for, which, according to the fiscal impact model, would be included in the estimated 180 to 483 units at full buildout, or up to 536 units at full buildout with density bonuses.
“The zoning … really does capture a lot of preserving the vibe of Belmont Center while also creating other opportunities to be, at a minimum, financial neutral or better,” said Matt Taylor.
Counter Argument
Drawing on several models, Widmer and Precinct 3 Town Meeting member Elisabeth Allison, who has a background in economics and served on both the Planning Board and Warrant Committee, argue that broken down over time, the net revenue is unrealistic based on the assumptions used to calculate it, and is not substantial enough to outweigh potential negative impacts, such as increased traffic or education costs. They noted that according to the 2024 RKG fiscal analysis report, to achieve the 90% to 10% tax split, the town would need to add roughly 1.9 million square feet of commercial space.
“This project will not deliver any property tax relief to homeowners, nor will it provide any relief to the schools,” Allison said. “If we look at what gets built in Belmont, there are developers eager to build housing, and many fewer eager to build commercial space.”
Morgenstern echoed the same concern about assumptions used in the fiscal analysis model being used for the overlay. In particular, he questioned the assumed number of school age children per housing unit, and the feasibility of a multi-story hotel on Concord Avenue.
He also argued that residential units were likely to be rented out faster than commercial spaces, resulting in the town incurring municipal costs before benefiting from new commercial revenue. Widmer and Allison had the same concerns.
“In the first few years … it’s absolutely going to be a substantial fiscal negative,” Widmer said.
Responding to critics of the fiscal impact model, Ryan said the revenue question is a complicated one.
“These things happen organically, and so you don’t see either the initial full benefit of it nor do you see the initial impact of it,” he said. “Over the building construction period, we would have gotten permit fees and other fees that go into the budget. Once the building opens, we get property taxes from it. … That starts to bring new revenue in. Then, you have a second building and a third building … and by year 30, you’ll hopefully have many buildings and you’ll get the full, cumulative impact of whatever fiscal impact occurs.”
In total, at full buildout, the overlay could result in an additional 883,386 square feet of new development without density bonuses, to 1.1 million square feet with density bonuses. Ryan clarified that this assumes all lots are built out—an unlikely reality when historic preservation is factored in.
“We’re not saying there shouldn’t be any more development in Belmont Center, and certainly not saying there shouldn’t be any more housing in Belmont Center, the question is scale–not turning Belmont Center into a city, and [the accuracy] around the numbers,” Widmer said.
Whereas one camp argues that, as it is, storefront vacancies in Belmont Center suggest there isn’t enough commercial interest to justify a significant zoning overhaul, the town argues it suggests the current zoning “isn’t working.”
“I think the market has proven over and over again that simply adding a story to an existing 1-story building– even though they could do it now, they’re not doing it,” Ryan said. “It’s not scaled up enough to provide the fiscal benefit we’re looking for. We’re requiring commercials on the first two floors, not just the first floor. … The fact we’re proposing the range we are is intended to hit the sweet spot in terms of bringing in revenue on our side and being feasible for developers on their side.”
Another point of contention between the town’s numbers and those who have done alternative analyses, including Widmer, Allison, and Morgenstern, is student enrollment. Assumptions around the number of children that would occupy a studio apartment, for example, change the overall projected impact on the education budget.
Differences of opinion have also led to a disagreement over whether Belmont is a viable spot for a hotel, which would generate a sizable portion of the projected net revenue from the proposed zoning change, per the fiscal model. The town has cited several parcels on Concord Avenue as possible landing sites for a hotel.
Allison cited a hotel-industry magazine article which, by her analysis, would not make that section of Concord Avenue a viable option.
Ryan said that while a feasibility study hasn’t been conducted—a concern of Widmer and Allison—the parcels are larger lots that could include surface parking or potentially structured parking below ground.
“I think the key is Concord Avenue is a major artery that connects directly to the Alewife area, so it’s relatively convenient,” he said, adding that area schools and McLean Hospital contribute to the market for a hotel.
To Widmer and Allison, “the picture is clear.”
“This could well be a money loser, not a money gainer,” Widmer said. Both are advocating instead for a scaled-back version of the proposal, and for the town’s Warrant Committee to do its own, independent analysis of the potential fiscal impact.
“That much new development is going to push a qualitative change, and not change that’s reversible,” Allison said.
Ryan, however, said he stands by the town’s interpretation of the data.
“The Planning Board and myself—we’re trying to … carry out the economic platform of the town Select Board and we’re trying to bring in revenue for the town,” he said. “Town Meeting will hopefully look at the data and decide if this makes sense from a technical side, but also feel this makes sense for Belmont … That this will be something that adds value to Belmont, then hopefully they’ll vote accordingly.”
