Mary Byrne
With a clearer image of the owner’s plans for Purecoat North, the question of whether the town should allow its redevelopment under the MBTA Communities Act remains up for debate.
Laurence Tosi, whose family has owned the metal-plate-making company at the corner of Brighton and Hittinger streets for 56 years, explained Monday night he has worked with the town over the last 25 years on ways the property could better serve the neighborhood.
“It wasn’t until the MBTA 3A that came up … that we realized that maybe we finally have an opportunity to do what we’ve always been trying to do,” Tosi said at a joint meeting between the Select Board and Planning Board Monday night.
He said the proposal is to convert the existing industrial sites at 39 Hittinger St. and 30 Brighton St. into a roughly 200-unit mixed-use building. To do this, however, Tosi is asking for the property to be included in Section 3A zoning — the technical name for the MBTA zoning law — which would allow redevelopment of the property to include ground-level retail and upper-floor apartments. Right now, the site is zoned industrial. In 2024, the town assessed the 39 Hittinger property and buildings at $4.3 million. The property at 30 Brighton is assessed at 5.6 million.
Of the two zoning maps Belmont submitted to the state on Aug. 9 for pre-compliance review, one included the Purecoat site, which, in the final weeks before submission, had become a sticking point for residents and town officials alike. Concerns about the influx of students and the increase in traffic were chief among the concerns, as was environmental remediation of the site. Reducing the town’s already small commercial footprint even further was also a significant concern.
“Commercial tax revenue is not the same as residential tax revenue,” said Rosemary Burke, a Precinct 2 Town Meeting member. “Commercial property must be the focus. Housing will be built. We’re doing 3A, and … that will enable the influx of potential students to be a gradual one, instead of a large influx of potential students into the school system and taxing other town services.”
Some viewed the redevelopment as an opportunity to address the state and local housing crisis. Tosi noted Wednesday night that 15% of the housing planned for the site will be affordable.
“I’m very excited about the inclusion of Purecoat,” said Rachel Heller, a member of the Housing Trust who also served as co-chair on the now-defunct MBTA Communities Advisory Committee. “I think this is a real win-win-win for Belmont for so many reasons.”
Heller highlighted plans to bring affordable housing to town, the commercial revenue brought in from the ground-level retail (combined with the housing revenue), and the prospect of an environmental cleanup on the site.
Precinct 6 Town Meeting member Karen Bauerle, also a member of the Housing Trust, said she looked forward to the opportunity for more housing.
“I do not know these people. … I am, however, willing to put my trust in people who come forward with good faith and want to help solve a problem that affects a whole region of our country and our state and our town,” Bauerle said.
Tosi’s presentation was preceded by a feasibility study presented by Jon Trementozzi, principal at Landwise Advisors, a Waltham-based real estate adviser. Hired by the town, Landwise collaborated with the architectural and design firm Utile to provide a conceptual site plan with the estimated fiscal impacts. Costs were calculated for schools (per projected pupil), fire and police (per projected resident), and public services and general government (per projected resident).
The analysis accounted for two potential scenarios, with the latter of the scenarios accommodating more residential units in the same square footage. In both scenarios, there was a net positive fiscal impact, ranging from $196,982 to $337,749. Select Board chair Elizabeth Dionne noted, however, Trementozzi’s figure included roughly $125,000 for one-time taxes and permits; therefore, the net new ongoing revenue would be closer to a range of $70,000 to $212,000.
“Given our fiscal constraints, we now need and want to attract commercial development and mixed-use housing that specifically addresses our recognized gaps for seniors and young professionals,” Dionne said. “However, we face two challenges that cannot responsibly be addressed in the seven weeks between now and the start of special Town Meeting.”
According to Dionne, issues include addressing the environmental remediation needed and the impact 200 housing units might have on public services and education.
“If we’re going to build additional housing units and welcome new residents to Belmont, then it is my responsibility … to locate additional sources of revenue to cover the municipal and educational services we are obliged and want to provide to all residents,” she said, noting that she supports redevelopment of the site, but not under 3A.
Planning Board Chair Taylor Yates echoed a similar concern about the fiscal impact, adding that focusing on increasing commercial development was crucial in the wake of the Proposition 2 ½ override last April.
Meanwhile, Select Board member Roy Epstein expressed support for including Purecoat in the 3A rezoning, arguing that while it may not be a “bonanza” for the town, it would offer a financial benefit.
“If [redevelopment] was not done under 3A but some other zoning, which would have to be drafted and enacted in a separate project, … the result of that would be something that would look pretty much like what’s being proposed under 3A now,” he said. “The prospect of finally something happening after at least 20 years of speculating about it, in a way that I believe will cover its own costs, be an aesthetic improvement, provide housing and deal with a latent environmental question, I think, are all reasons to move ahead today.”
A direct abutter of the site, Alex Thurston, also expressed “enthusiastic” support for the proposal but had questions about the environmental status of the site. In particular, he wanted to clarify whether there was any activity between the Mass Department of Environmental Protection and the town. Town Administrator Patrice Garvin responded that there is a record with DEP.
The most recent year a DEP inspection of the facility was provided to the town, however, was unknown.
Tosi noted the site is compliant based on its current zoning, but would need to be brought to the “highest environmental standards” if redeveloped.
Some residents, including School Committee Chair Meghan Moriarty and resident Erin Rowland, had questions about the numbers to determine impact on schools.
“I think it’s really important we look at simplified numbers and sometimes question them,” she said.
Referring to a 2020 presentation, when the town was looking at other housing development projects, Moriarty said there was a more comprehensive analysis done that didn’t just identify the number of potential incoming students, but the likely age of the students and the grades they’d be joining.
“There are operational implications, not just financial,” she said. “It may mean redistricting of students, especially in those elementary schools that are close to this development.”
Before adjourning the 2 ½ hour meeting, Dionne said she is confident that an MBTA zoning map, with or without Purecoat, will be approved at the November special Town Meeting.
“This is not a question of housing or no housing. Housing will happen,” she said. “It’s really a question of what is the mix of commercial versus residential and what is the degree of control we want to maintain over the development of this very key parcel.”