Belmont Town Meeting 2013, Day 3

Welcome back, everyone, to the third night of Belmont's annual Town Meeting, being held in the auditorium of Belmont High School, May 6, 2013.

And tonight could possibly be the final night of the first portion of Town Meeting if the approximately 300 members can finish the following articles by about 10 p.m.: 

• Article 28: creating an Underwood Pool and Playground Building Committee.

• Article 30: a new zoning by-law on interim controls on medical marijuana in town.

• Article 31: another new zoning by-law to help preserve religious and municipal buildings in town.

• Article 27: a small easement at the Oakley housing development on Belmont Street.

• Article 22: Criminal history background checks for door-to-door sales, cab drivers, ice cream truck vendors and a few other folks.

• Article 24: The creation of a new enterprise fund for a storm management system. 

• Article 23: With the fund must come a new town by-law on storm management.

• Article 25: a senior tax-abatement program.

• Articles 3 to 8: The annual financial authorizations such as the salaries for elected officials, revolving funds and fiscal transfers.

• Article 20: Electronic voting at Town Meeting.

• Articles 9-12: More fiscal house keeping including authorizing the payment of approximately $250,000 into the Other Post Employment (OPEB) stabilization fund. 

If they can do it – and I'm thinking it's about 50/50 that they can – the next time Town Meeting will meet will be at the Special Town Meeting on May 29. The budget items will be done on June 3 and 5. 

7 p.m.: It's time to start but it appears that we'll be starting on "Belmont" time ... about five minutes late.

7:05 p.m.: Police Chief McLaughlin wants to thank the police officers and everyone who answered the call. A well-deserved standing ovation.

From Moderator Mike Widmer: Please keep comments within the scope of the article. Stay focused, people.

7:10 p.m.: State Rep. Dave Rogers brings good news on roads and Chapter 70 education spending will likely increase from the current amount in the House budget. Will help fund the education gap currently facing the School Department.

7:17 p.m.: State Sen. Will Brownsberger speaks about the Trapelo Road/Belmont Street project and what a good job the town has done to get this done. There is a bit of a delay on the construction, mostly due to the MBTA wires. But the state does have the money to cover the additional cost - a few million dollars - so the $18 million project will do a lot for the town.

7:25 p.m.: The first article up tonight is creating an Underwood Pool and Playground Building Committee. While the Selectmen and Warrant Committee are in favor of the project - which will cost $298,000 (that money was approved by Town Meeting as part of the CPC projects) - but Capital Budget Committees opposes the article. Selectman Mark Paolillo said that the town needs to move forward on designing a project but they know that this project isn't the most important project and wants to work with the Capital Budget on solving any issues. 

Anne Marie Mahoney, chair of Capital Budget, said they are OK with a new pool but they gave $30,000 to Peter Castinino, head of the town's DPW, to do a study on the pool and a possible playground and it came through with a pool only option. But pool is the last of six priority projects. But they are reluctant to say no but this isn't a good time to push the pool when the police station and DPW yard - both in need to be repaired or replaced - needs to be done first. So let's wait until there is a better debate on all capital needs.

Jenny Fallon, pct. 1, said will a no vote on a pool building committee effect the CPC money already in place. Paolillo said no impact. Vincent Stanton, pct. 3, said if the building committee goes forward, won't any plan become "stale" if the pool is place low on the priority list. Castinino said that's not an easy answer but yes, after a couple of years, it would likely be updated. Ellen Schreiber, pct. 8, said voting no would defeat the building committee and there would be no design for a pool that is ready to fail. Paolillo said that it's speculative but the state will not likely provide the variance to allow the pool to open in 2014. Bob McLaughlin, pct. , said why not wait and let the money stay in the town coffers and allow the Capital Budget Committee to create criteria for creating a list of needed projects. Kimberly Becker, pct. 6, said we don't have a plan for any project; we need a new DPW but also a pool and a police station etc. There is never a plan and nothing gets done. Will Capital Budget Committee take charge? Paolillo said the town absolutely needs a plan. Mahoney said yes, once we prioritize the plan, then we need to know how to fund them. "Someone needs to step up to the plate."

7:50 p.m.: Donald Mercier, pct. 8, said he supports working with the Capital Budget so the pool isn't the first priority. Fred Paulsen, pct. 1, said this comes as a surprise as it's really a small project with already CPC money and it needs to be done. For the large projects, yes, make a priority list but for this, stop delaying and let's get things done. Eric Smith, pct. 6, asked "Is there a realistic sense that you can establish a priority list by the fall?" (with light laughter from some.) Mahoney said yes, it can be done but it will be via a Town Meeting vote (It's you, not us, have the final say.) Adam Dash, pct. 1, said we talk and talk and now its time to do this "small project." John Weis, pct. 1, six months is a long time. Mahoney said her committee does not want to delay even one summer season. Andy Rojas, pct 5 and selectman, said delaying it six months will force the construction to leak into 2015. Paolillo said time is not on the town's side. Mahoney said the only way to pay for the project will require a debt exclusion so there will be a delay anyway you look at it. 

The amended article is moved and passes.

Up now, medical marijuana, dude. Article 30. 

It's about controling the distribution of medical marijuana in town. You can read about the article here. 

Sami Baghdady, chairman of the Planning Board, said every town needs a by-law but many towns are using a one-year freeze to enact zoning laws. Belmont will take its time enacting the law. Belmont doesn't want them, for example, near schools or in residential areas (which is about everywhere in Belmont.) 

William Messenger, pct 4, asks a great question: can the town deny a license if the federal government doesn't approve of a state law? George Hall, town counsel, said the state doesn't allow towns to prevent a dispensory.

Maryann Scali, asks doesn't state law prevents the distribution of drugs 1,000 feet from a school? Town Moderator Widmer said he "withdraws" Baghdady example of schools from his presentation. "I should use this more often," said Widmer. 

The article passes. 

8:20 p.m.: Now, another zoning by-law on the table: preserving religious and municipal buildings. The Planning Board's article would prevent the destruction of buildings such as the Waverley Square church. The by-law would allow for incentives - greater parking, allow residential in commercial areas, reduce affordable housing requirements and increasing the number of floors and units - to be given to developers to re-adapt the use of these important buildings. Look at the old fire stations in Belmont as examples. There would be a dozen religious buildings and five municipal buildings protected by the new by-law. As an example, let's say someone wanted to build on the land of Payson Park Church. As of right, four units of townhouses. The town can provide increased the number of stories and height so it can provide six to nine units. And applause at the end of the presentation.

There is an amendment by Judy Feins, pct. 5, said she approves the concept of the article but as a member of the town's Housing Trust, wants to remove the affordable housing "incentive." She will increase the density and number of floors "on the site" from the original amendment. She said that density has been a real problem with neighbors so that the Planning Board would first reduce the affordable housing requirements. The Selectmen, Planning Board and Warrant Committee oppose the amendments. Baghdady said this is a preservation by-law - they worked with the Historic District Commission - especially after the church demolition, and not about affordable housing. Baghdady said the article says "modify" and not "eliminate" the goals of affordable housing and allows the Housing Trust to have a "seat at the table" when incentives are discussed. Baghdady said that affordable housing payments are the most expensive requirements a developers would face. The Waverley Square church would have faced a $300,000 fee to rebuild the church. And by adding development in the site rather than just the building could result in large buildings in, let's say, a parking lot.

8:46 p.m.: Jenny Fallon, pct 1, takes issue that adding the site would be better in selling a developer to build on the site. Andy Rojas, selectman and pct. 5, said he talked to the developer of the Waverley Square church said four times that the affordable housing requirements were the biggest issue. Rojas said more floors and parking didn't resonate to the developer. Vincent Stanton, pct. 3, agrees with what Feins is proposing but money talks to a developer. Monty Allen, pct. 8, said the article "conflicts us" as it takes into effect affordable housing and preservation. Does "modify" mean going to "zero?" It's a case by case decision, said Baghdady, but it could mean a "significant" reduction. What if the Housing Trust objects to the "modification?" ask Holly Muson, pct. 1. Baghdady said it will be a working process and through a joint effort but it will have the final say. Bob McLaughlin, pct. 2, said this amendment is trying to get to the perfect at the expense of the good. 

Precinct 2's Karnig Ostayan, the developer of the Bell Tower Place in Watertown – an example of successful reuse of a church – on Mt. Auburn Street, said he would never deal with Watertown again because all of the unknown in that town. But Belmont is being proactive with this by-law which will help all sides. And by keeping affordable housing requirements on the table, the Planning Board has another tool to use, said Ostayan. 

The amendment is defeated.

Roger Colton, pct. 6, while being a former member of re-use project, said he is voting no because the by-law is so flawed it beyond help. Colton says the by-law, which was written in haste and after a historic church was torn down, said the language is all over the place. He makes a case that the by-laws language allows so many uses on any site - what design requirements, for example – and gives the Planning Board a lot more power and without any oversight. Why not just use the state's 40R districts that will also insulate the town from a 40B affordable housing development. Colton said everyone agrees with the principal of historic preservation but this is not the by-law as it needs specific guidelines. 

Baghdady responds, this by-law doesn't rezone these properties but gives tools, incentives, for these 20 buildings to preserve the sites. Any development will need a special permit to build. "If you want to preserve these 20 buildings, give us the tools," said Baghdady. 

9:20 p.m.: Sue Bass, pct. 3, disagrees with her friend Colton said the by-law doesn't allow for large commercial buildings on these site since it says it needs a special permit and under state law, the Planning Board can say "no" to giving that permit. 

Mike Smith, co-chair of the Historic District Commission, says there are few preservation tools the town has. The incentives offered to developers under this article presents an opportunity to save important buildings. 

Mr. Stanton, pct. 3, asks about the state 40R law, can it help this by-law as being complementary to the process. No, said Baghdady, the 40R requires 20 percent affordable housing and its way too time consuming.

The motion is presented and approved by more than two-thirds.

What's up? Article 31, the easement from Oakley Development. This better pass with very little discussion, it's 151 square feet with a bench on it. Rojas said that the site was going to be a place for the bell of Our Lady of Mercy but it turned out that the bell in the tower was plastic. 

The article is approved. 

9:32 p.m.: How about a new by-law? Article 27, criminal history background checks for door-to-door sales, cab drivers, ice cream truck vendors and a few other folks. Towns can pass these by-laws after the state legislature passed a state law on the matter.

Basically, it's a public safety issue: Chief McLaughlin says that this article will make the most vulnerable protected. It will require fingerprints for those ice cream truck drivers, which goes beyond the CORI laws. 

Don Mercier, pct. 8, asks why isn't Girl Scout cookie salers on this list? They are not on the list, said McLaughlin. They are door-to-door sales men, said Mercier. It's OK to sell if you're under 17, said McLaughlin. 

Roy Epstein, pct. 6, said he's confused who is a door-to-door salesman: a member of Greenpeace? George Hall, town counsel, said he believes that anyone who needs a license is on this list; others only need to be registered. How about thrift shop owners, those who sell second-hand goods. "I don't think we know what we are voting for?" A lot of reading of by-laws by those at the podium.

Ana Helena Cruz, pct. 5, said she is concerned that the by-laws language doesn't give every applicant equal treatment. "I wonder what sort of precedence we are setting with expanding criminal background checks" for people like second-hand sellers. "I would error on personal freedom," she said. Jennifer Page, pct. 3, I share a concern of targeting second-hand shop owners who are well-established. Assistant Chief James MacIssac said when people apply for, let's say, a taxi license, the Police will have their fingerprints taken and see if they have been arrested anywhere in the country. It is one more step to review the background on those who already need to be licensed by the town.

Jack Weis, pct. 1, asks if this is voted down, Belmont could still meet the law on ice cream trucks? MacIssac says that under this by-law, he could tell if a person has criminal record outside of Massachusetts. Then, asked Weis, if all the bylaw is doing is increasing the database, why all the axillary language on process? Helen Golding, pct. 1, said she understands the ice cream sales and others but the second-hand goods shouldn't be placed with the other licensees. Joel Semuels, pct 6, asked if any other town approved the law. It's a recent law, said McLaughlin, he doesn't know. Lynne Polcari, pct. 5, said this law will only prevent people we don't want in town preying on people. You don't have to worry about a fingerprint test.

The motion has been moved and with a good deal of opposition, the article passed.

10:19 p.m.: It's way late and Moderator Widmer sees more hands in the air to adjourn until Wednesday. See you then!