During my tenure as town moderator, I often counseled Select Board members on whether a controversial proposal was sufficiently developed to present to Town Meeting. Were I still moderator, I would strongly advise this Select Board that the proposed Belmont Center overlay is not ready for prime time.
The issue is not whether some development of Belmont Center is a good idea but whether this proposal merits approval by Town Meeting.
It does not.
The proposed scale is enormous, with four and five-story buildings (two floors of commercial and the rest residential) destroying Belmont Center’s character and potentially forcing most of our small businesses to close. No similar Massachusetts community has undertaken anything of this scale in a one-block area.
Furthermore, Town leaders have punted on addressing parking needs of 500 new rental units and 1,200 employees of new businesses, and the compounding of current traffic problems.
But what about the Select Board’s repeated claims that the Center proposal will provide property tax relief and more funding for the schools?
Unfortunately, that is a fabrication.
Working with several Belmont residents who, like me, are economic and financial analysts, we have concluded that the proposal would break even at best, and more likely result in a loss. New revenues from commercial development would be more than offset by additional costs, principally educating additional children.
In short, the overlay proposal might well worsen the town’s finances, requiring cuts in services or larger override requests.
So should the town simply walk away from developing Belmont Center? Absolutely not. Town leaders should revise the current proposal in at least three major areas — reducing scale, eliminating by-right provisions, and phasing in the proposal.
Belmont Center’s geographic footprint is smaller than the centers of our surrounding towns. Retaining the Center’s historic town requires smaller buildings than those proposed.
Under by-right zoning, the town will have limited ability to influence future Center projects. Not only are the details of design and site plan review (DSPR) far from final, but key elements of the proposal are being removed from the zoning bylaws and can be modified by the Planning Board without Town Meeting approval.
Phasing in sections of the Center would provide an opportunity for corrections, essential given the large uncertainties around something of this scale. Furthermore, current local business and 3A zoning in the Center allow for significant development.
Finally, we will all lose with a sharply divided Town Meeting. The Select Board’s goal should be to develop a broad consensus. Sadly the current proposal fails that test.
Michael Widmer, Gilbert Road