Residents are beginning to hone in on how they hope to see the town implement new zoning that would bring Belmont in line with the MBTA Communities Law.
“We have some important work to do as a community, and you are all welcome to be part of this work,” Rachel Heller, co-chair of the MBTA Communities Advisory Committee, said at the most recent public meeting on the plan.
The MBTA Communities Act requires towns such as Belmont, served by the MBTA, to create at least one zoning district of reasonable size where multi-family housing is permitted and that meets other criteria, including:
- A minimum density of 15 units per acre.
- Not more than ½ mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal, or bus station.
- No age restrictions, and suitable for families with children.
The law is not without critics. Voters in Milton recently rejected an effort to amend zoning to comply with the MBTA Communities Act. In a statement on social media, Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said she was “disappointed” with Milton residents who “chose to be part of the problem rather than the solution to our housing affordability crisis.”
Belmont Scenarios
In January, the Massachusetts Area Planning Council (MAPC) presented five rezoning scenarios to Belmont’s MBTA Communities Advisory Committee. They called for rezoning areas of town to create 716 housing units, 3,141 units, 2,151 units, 3,034 units, and 1,745 units, respectively. The first and last options have since been eliminated, according to Josh Fiala, principal land use manager of the MAPC.
With the new Option 1, the rezoning would predominantly include Waverley, with Belmont Village, Belmont Center, upper Pleasant Street, Brighton Street, Blanchard Road, and East Concord Avenue also included.
Option 2, meanwhile, would focus on the station areas and have fewer units overall.
Fiala said that Option 3 “looks very similar” to Option 1, with a more distributed approach.
Select Board Chair Roy Epstein, who serves as co-chair of the MBTA Communities Advisory Committee, added his own proposal, which seeks to create zoning that brings the unit count closer to 1672 without going over. Epstein’s plan distributes the rezoning through Waverley Square, Belmont Center, and Belmont Village.
“It tries to target some properties that are underutilized and could benefit from development,” Epstein said, noting the end of Moraine Street in Waverley as an example.
With all other requirements considered, “I think this is where you end up,” he said.
Following the presentation by Fiala, residents were invited to review the displayed maps, ask questions of committee members, and indicate their preferred options using red and green stickers. Green indicated the”most preferred”; red indicated the “least preferred” options.
“I’m delighted we’re doing this,” said Anne Mahon, a member of the Belmont Housing Authority and a Town Meeting member, speaking after the meeting. “We need more housing.”
Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member Kate Dilawari said she is excited about the proposed zoning changes.
“I fundamentally believe this is about whether we are an exclusive or inclusive town,” she said. “The thing I’m focusing on is … the majority of the housing types that are being contemplated are not that different from the two- to three-story homes we already have in Belmont.”
She said Belmont Center and Waverley Square needed to be part of the solution, as well as Blanchard Road.
Resident David Chase, however, said he was most likely an “outlier.” While he acknowledges the need for more housing, “if we add people, people cost money.”
“I don’t like that I’m being forced to choose between two things,” he said. “As we add housing, there will be impacts.”
Chase said he would ultimately be in favor of an option distributing new housing around town as much as possible. Fiala noted in his presentation this would be Option 3.
During the meeting, Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member Judith Ananian Sarno questioned why the most recent versions of the plans presented to members included South Pleasant Street on the maps, when they hadn’t previously been.
“South Pleasant was brought back not only as something that could provide some flexibility for this particular scenario but also because there has been some expression of interest on the part of the development community that this would be a parcel of interest,” explained Town Planner Christopher Ryan. “It’s rare we hear there are areas of interest to actually be developed.”
There’s a senior overlay district there.
“Having some more options in an area where there might be some demand for some residential is possibly a very good idea,” he said.
Sarno, however, felt the decision demonstrated a lack of transparency — a concern echoed by resident Ira Morgenstern.
“Transparency is key,” he said.
Morgenstern argued that when considering options to move forward, Belmont needs to be mindful of its need to allow room for commercial development.
“Residential-only is not a viable way,” he said.
The next opportunity for residents to share their input will be at the Communities Advisory Committee meeting on Feb. 29 at 7 p.m. The meeting, which will be open to the public, will take place both virtually and in person.
“We’re hoping to, if not at that meeting, in short order, to select an option to advance as the in-progress option to continue to iterate on,” said Fiala. “We’ll be working in-hand with the committee to move toward a transition to the Planning Board, who would then be carrying this process forward.”
