After nearly three hours of debate at Town Meeting Monday night, an amendment to Article 2 — an entirely separate zoning map — failed by a vote of 162 opposed, 79 in favor.
Article 2 seeks to approve zoning language bringing Belmont into compliance with a new state law requiring towns served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), such as Belmont, to create at least one 3A zoning district of reasonable size where multi-family housing is permitted and meets other criteria. The warrant article comes after years of public meetings on how best to comply with the MBTA Communities Act, which seeks to increase housing production amid the state’s housing crisis.
According to Planning Board Chair Taylor Yates, non-compliance with the law could result in Belmont losing grant eligibility, getting sued by the Attorney General, facing a civil lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act, or the state imposing zoning language without Belmont’s input. The deadline for compliance is Dec. 31.
Tonight, Town Meeting will continue its discussion from Monday, focusing now on the main motion – a zoning map, referred to as Map 1, which the Planning Board put forth. Yates explained Map 1 includes zoning for 1671 units, with a total acreage of 58.5 acres.
The amendment discussed on Monday — referred to as Map 2 — was presented by Select Board member Roy Epstein and was described as nearly identical to Map 1. The only difference, he explained, was the inclusion of a portion of Brighton Street encompassing the Purecoat North property. In exchange, lower Belmont, part of Map 1, was excluded.
“It’s one of the largest – what I would call underutilized – parcels in Belmont,” Epstein told Town Meeting members, referring to the Purecoat site.
In a presentation to Town Meeting Monday night, Epstein said there was no market for a new industrial use, and that in 20 years several redevelopment ideas have fallen through. The owner, however, is now considering the possibility of a mixed-use development.
While a mixed-use residential development wouldn’t be a “bonanza,” Epstein said he believes it would offer the town substantially more in property taxes. Currently, the site generates $100,000 annually in property taxes, according to Epstein.
State Sen. Will Brownsberger, who also is an At-Large Town Meeting member, spoke in favor of the second map, arguing that with a plan in the pipeline for redevelopment, “we need to choose the plan that builds the most housing.” Belmont Housing Trust members argued the same.
A longtime neighbor of the Purecoat site, Precinct 1 Town Meeting member Kristin Nelson-Patel, viewed the potential for redevelopment as a positive.
“That site has never been close to the possibility of being developed into something better for that neighborhood,” she said. “I am self-interested in it, but I also believe that site is a more attractive site for business and homes.”
Others who spoke on the amendment objected to the idea of eliminating a commercial district in favor of mixed-use.
“Housing is great, housing is essential, but housing that puts us in a deep economic hole, which we are currently trying to dig ourselves out of, is not good policy,” said Precinct 2 Town Meeting member Ed Barker, who advocated instead for Map 1.
Precinct 1 Town Meeting member Nicole Dorn said the town can’t hope to achieve financial sustainability by decreasing its commercial tax base.
Precinct 6 Town Meeting member Erin Rowland, campaign manager for the $8.4 million Proposition 2 ½ override in April, said that during the override campaign, town leaders promised residents they would work hard to expand the town’s commercial tax base.
“My concern about Map 2 is it really moves in the opposite direction,” Rowland said. “It takes about five acres of commercial land … and it moves it into a predominantly residential use. The current proposed development indeed includes some commercial, but it’s very small.”
Other Amendments
In addition to the secondary map, Town Meeting members considered a handful of other amendments. With the failure of Map 2, each amendment was considered in relation to Map 1.
One of these amendments, which largely addressed some typos in the zoning language and an edit to a table, passed without discussion by a vote of 236-1, with two abstentions.
Amendment 3, proposed by Precinct 6 Town Meeting member Doug Koplow and Precinct 3 member Bob Sarno, sought to decrease the building height in the multi-family housing overlay district, which includes the mandatory mixed-use subdistrict in the zoning map.
“We proposed this amendment because we feel that we can still comply with 3A and not change the character of our town squares too greatly,” said Sarno.
The amendment failed, 41 in favor and 170 opposed.
The amendment, however, received unfavorable recommendations from the Select Board, Warrant Committee, and Planning Board in advance of the meeting. Town officials who spoke to it expressed concern that the amendment wouldn’t keep the map in compliance with state law. Others argued that it went against a fiscal analysis study that concluded better economic viability at 3.5 stories compared to 3 stories in a mixed-use development.
The final amendment, which will be presented by Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member Joe Wright and Precinct 3 Town Meeting member Rachel Heller Tuesday night, seeks to “ensure Belmont by-right multi-family zoning allows for multi-family housing production.”
As such, the amendment seeks to remove building footprint maximums and building separation requirements for multiple buildings on a lot. Setback requirements (including from the street, the side, and the rear), open space requirements, maximum dwelling units, parking requirements, and height limits.
Town Meeting continues tonight at 7:00 in the high school auditorium.