Belmont Town Meeting 2013, Day 4

Welcome to the fourth night of the 2013 annual Belmont Town Meeting. 

And we should expect a "quick" night as there is only a few articles and the most significant one – storm water management system – being presented by the town's Director of the Office of Community Development Glenn Clancy, a real pro at passing even the most difficult.

The order of Wednesday's meeting will be:

• Article 24: A new enterprise fund for a new storm water management system is expected to be dismissed.

• Article 23: The creation of a by-law that will create a storm water management plan. This is essentially a federal government dictate that towns establish and pay for updated water standards and pollution controls. There are four amendments - three from Robert McGaw that will exempt gardening from the plan. 

• Article 25: Raise the Senior Tax Abatement from $750 to $1,000 for residents greater than 60 years old who volunteer their services to the town. 

Article 24 has been withdrawn.

Article 23, the creation of a storm water management by-law is now being presented by Selectman Ralph Jones and explained by Glenn Clancy. Basically, the town promised the federal EPA when it signed a permit 10 years ago that it would pass a by-law and "it's about time." The permit is 58 pages and very technical, said Clancy. There are two seperate systems: sewage and storm water. When it rains like today, it's different but at times they do "mingle" so this by-law will help make everything on the up-and-up. The town has to do a lot of monitering and controling pollution of illicit discharge with education and constructing new runoff controls. This is the permit. Now the by-law. The state requires municipalities to have an ordinance or by-law to enforce illict discharge, construct site runoff controls and have a management system for new developments of more than one acre. "It's a requirement," said Clancy. And it's the right thing for the community to do.

Exceptions to the by-law: lots with three or fewer dwelling units so that means a lot of folks. The storm water management by-law goes to any alteration of land of 2,500 sq.ft. or greater or increase impervious surface area by 25 percent.

Bob McGaw, pct. 1, is asking to dismiss an earlier amendment that was sent to Town Meeting members about adding gardening as an exemption. That passes, Soooo, the second amendment is the first that is "shrunked" down to a couple of words which protects residents to do customary landscaping and gardening. Selectmen supports it as a "friendly" amendment as does the Warrant Committee.

John Robotham, pct 2, says the amendment is said to be "gardening" friendly. Residential property is already protected so why do you need this amendment. Just clarifying that the by-law isn't trying to limit anyone. The amendment passes.

The next amendment is also gardening related by adding "excess" in the by-law when describing "pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers" which are pollutants defined by the new rules. Amendment passes and is adopted.

The final amendment by McGaw to change the by-law's rule on the alteration of land - basically when construction is being done at a site – from  2,500 to 5,000 sq.ft. Why be so restrictive on residents when the EPA's minimum is one acre.

Selectmen and Warrant Committee are opposed to this amendment. Roger Colton, pct. 6, and a co-chair of Sustainable Belmont who helped write the by-law, said that Belmont has more impervious surfaces - asphalt, etc. - then most communities. Next, the alteration is only the disturbed land at the site not the total amount. 

Once again, Clancy said that residential properties less than three units of housing - it's been developed - it's exempt from erosion control. So building an addition is exempt? You bet. Tear down and build a McMansion on the site is exempt? NO!

Lydia Ogilby, pct 1, asks how does this impact Uplands development? "Can we shut it down with this?" asked Ogilby. Clancy said the Uplands will be placed under this by-law, to cheers. 

This amendment is defeated.

Now the entire by-law is up for discussion and a vote.

Jeanne Mooney, pct. 6, asks about dog "feces" being thrown down the drains. How can this be stopped? Clancy said neighborhoods who are scofflaws in the case of doggie doo disposal will by identified and an education program will be set up to convince people to stop doing that. 

Sue Bass, pct 3, said she is supportive of the article but the by-law should include tear downs: houses being demolished to build new, bigger - and some with more units - housing. Can we wait until the Special Town Meeting to allow for the new language to add these. Ralph Jones said that "lawyers in the room" believe there is an ambiguity in the by-law that should be corrected but the best way is to pass this article and come back in the fall at a possible Special Town Meeting to introduce an amendment to the by-law. The crowd likes that solution. 

David Chase, pct 3, said that exemptions should be for "three and fewer" units replacing "one, two or three" units because "zero" is less than one and would include lots.

Christine Kochem, pct. 8, asked that the article be tabled until the Special Town Meeting to fix the article for tear downs. Vincent Stanton asks why give up the protections of 95 percent of the article that's correct to fix a minor point, to cheers. 

Kevin Cunningham, pct 4, asks: can a "new" article that adds tear downs language be introduced at the Special Town Meeting? Yes, said Jones. So I guess we will have another article at Special on Wednesday, May 29. 

A question that Glenn doesn't have an answer: if a house is torn down but the foundation stays, does the site remain exempt? "It's an interesting one." 

The article is called and is passes as amended. And Glenn receives a big round of (well-earned) applause.

8:34 p.m.: Now the final article of the night, raising the Senior Tax Abatement from $750 to $1,000 for residents greater than 60 years old who volunteer their services to the town.

Roy Epstein, pct. 6, and a member of the Warrant Committee who voted against this article. The town doesn't have a nickel for anything; ie the sidewalk budget is $7,100 in FY '14. "So here we, as Town Meeting, have discretion" over budgetary matters. Just because the state raises the amount the town can exempt, we don't have to do it, said Epstein. It will impact 16 people and cost the town $4,000. Why not use our vote to do something better, and vote no. 

Mark Paolillo, Selectmen chair, said this applies to 16 people and it's mean tested. There are needs everywhere and this amount is worth spending on these volunteers. Paul Roberts, pct 8, said that we are grievously under investing youth activities ($6,000 in the youth revolving account compared to $60,000 for the senior center) and we can't afford it. Joel Semuels, pct. 6, and Council on Aging board asked, "Do you want to keep your seniors in town?" especially since they spent so much living in Belmont in the past. Penny Schafer, pct 7, said the Revolving Fund is separate from the Tax Relief. The $4,000 for tax relief is paid for by tax revenues. The Revolving Fund contains money the seniors pay in fees and is used to pay instructors. "It's not that taxpayers giving $4,000 to the seniors," she said. Maryann Scali, pct 2, said there is a lot of free giving at the center by volunteers who don't get paid. Voting against this is not a vote against seniors just that there are greater issues that need to be addressed, said Ana Helena Cruz, pct. 5. Mark Paolillo, selectman, said that the $4,000 will not go into the general fund if this article is defeated but stay in the revolving account. "Come on, these are our seniors." 

Editorial comment: This is an argument that would not have come up in the past. It's interesting to see so many members who are registering their concern of the lack of financial forethought that they see is having a detrimental impact on the town's future.

Roberts is back to say that this debate points the finger at the continuing "crisis" that the town runs under each and every year. "Families are the future of the town." "It's a red flag that the budget situation is in crisis. Please put an override before the town." 

I see Roberts becoming a Braveheart figure who shouts "Override!" before going into battle. 

Floyd Carman, Town Treasurer, said this is not a handout, that many of the seniors are "hanging on by a thread."

Motion is called and adopted.

It's 9:05 p.m. and we are ajourned until Special Town Meeting on Wednesday, May 29 at the High School. See you then!