Online Public Comment Form and Comments Archive

Page Last Updated 04-03-24

Belmont residents and other interested stakeholders who wish to pose a question or make a comment regarding the MBTA Communities Zoning project can use the link included below. Please feel free to make your comment in the spirit of positive civic collaboration and interaction. All comments will be monitored for appropriateness prior to posting.

Link to Public Comment Form: MBTA Communities Advisory Committee Public Comments

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARCHIVE (Updated 04/03/2024)

Please see submitted and curated comments submitted below in chronological order with most recent comments on the bottom.

1. Fiscal Impact Analysis (Comments submitted by Taylor Yates on December 10, 2023) - I advise the committee to develop a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed zoning changes. As the Town considers other changes that will impact our finances (such as overrides and commercial density), transparency around MBTA Communities'' fiscal impact will enable better decision-making on other issues. Because these are changes to zoning, we don''t know how much of the newly zoned real estate will actually be built. A relatively simple scenario analysis, which models what happens to Town finances if different percentages of the newly zoned real estate is built, (25 / 50 / 75 / 90%, for example), would probably be satisfactory.

2. "Other" Category (Comments submitted by Mary Lewis on December 12, 2023) - I attended the Belmont MBTA communities meeting on December 7. I learned a lot but I wanted to express a concern about the idea of exclusive neighborhood meetings. We are a 4.8 square mile town, so every meeting should be open to all people. I believe it would be more productive to hold meetings by theme or goal. We would not want a meeting to be able to be more or less taken over by the concerns or interests of one neighborhood over another. The very questions on this form (which ask for the neighborhood or street in which you have concerns) seem to assume a neighborhood rather than town-wide approach.

3. Specific District or Subdistrict Related Question (Comments submitted by Katherine Dilawari on December 18, 2023) - [1]. In Belmont Center, the Chase Bank property should be Subdistrict 4 or 5.  This is already commercial, why not allow mixed use? [2] The Belmont- Watertown United Methodist Church should be Subdistruct 3 or 4.  They have already looked to sell this property, and its location proximate to Cushing Square is perfect for mixed use or multifamily residential. [3] Northeast of the intersection of Pleasant Street and Brighton Avenue, the properties north and south of Pleasant Street should be subdistrict 4 or 5.  Given the proximity to the highway, this does not detract from the character of our town, and this is located along a bus line that goes directly to Alewife. I am a resident and Town Meeting Member in the Winn Brook neighborhood.  I support rezoning to allow for more density near our transit hubs.  This type of development can add more commercial tax base and can be done without detracting from the residential quality of the vast majority of our neighborhoods.  Density will bring more foot traffic and vibrancy to our commercial centers too, enhancing the demographics near existing commercial properties (see graphic provided by Katherine Dilawari HERE.

4. Suggestion for Committee Consideration (Comments submitted by Timothy Flood on December 21, 2023) - Good Evening, The Belmont Age Friendly Action Committee would like to ensure age friendly components are part of any plan. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss what this may mean to the Belmont Community. I have attached our current action plan [HERE and HERE] for review.

5. General Support for Current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Aaron Pikcilingis on January 3, 2024) - Hello, and thank you to the members of the committee and Town staff members for all their work on this important initiative. I''m writing to express my support for the program and to urge the committee, planning board, and Town Meeting Members to develop and approve a plan that goes beyond the minimum requirements set forth by state law. Instead, I suggest we use this as an opportunity to set a clear direction for development in Belmont that will support our need for more affordable housing and make it easier and less risky for developers to bring more commercial and mixed use projects here. Thank you!

6. E-Mail from Resident (From Pari Garay on January 29, 2024) - Hi there, My name is Pari Garay and I am a Belmont resident, I live near Belmont Center on Alexander Ave. I listened in on the forum meeting today and just wanted to say thanks for putting the meeting together. I just wanted to voice my support for the project, we need affordable housing and we need to make the town as a whole more walkable. Best, Pari.

7. Suggestion for Committee Consideration (Comments submitted by Joe Bernard on January 30, 2024) - Hi all, I attended the public forum last night (1/29) and I wanted to send a couple notes of feedback. First, since the topic came up quite a bit, you can count me as +1 in favor of zero parking minimums, for all of the reasons stated during the forum (walkability, pollution, transportation alternatives like bikes and scooters, etc.). Second, you can count me as +1 in favor of exceeding the minimum required 1,632 units if we have strategic reasoning for doing so. It struck me that a few people used their mic time to both advocate for a commercial tax base and question why we’d exceed 1,632. I know that one of the committee’s stated goals is to maximize economic development, so perhaps the strategy of placing the new multifamily zones around commercial corridors needs to be reiterated or highlighted as good for a commercial tax base (if I’m understanding correctly how the committee is trying to accomplish the goal of maximizing economic development). And that is a perfect example of why we might exceed 1,632 for a strategic reason, to boost economic growth across multiple commercial corridors. Thanks!

8. General support for current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Joe Wright on February 2, 2024) - "I attended both the forum on Monday and the first portion of the committee’s meeting today (Feb 1). I would like to express my strong support for the so-called Lexington option and urge the committee to not reduce the number of units in this plan. Commenters at the public forum who asked for mere compliance with minimum units do not appreciate the opportunity we have to reshape Belmont, increase our commercial tax base, and increase density in areas of commercial activity. I also urge the committee to think more clearly about the benefits of creating opportunities for affordable housing. There is no reason to do the minimum here, either. We can not speak about a “small-town atmosphere” in Belmont if the people who work here can’t afford to live here."

9. Concerns over current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Evanthia Malliris on February 8, 2024) - "I have several concerns:

  • The state mandate for Belmont is to build approx. 1,600 multifamily housing units. Why is the committee proposing 3,000? This is not necessary. I strongly encourage building only what must be built. Let''s do our part -- let''s let other towns do their part. I''d like to know why this number has been inflated.
  • The MBTA law that the committee operates under states that multifamily housing be built in areas of towns where there is existing multifamily housing. There doesn't appear to be existing multifamily housing in Belmont Center.
  • Building 5 to 6 story housing of any kind anywhere in Belmont is simply too large for our town. I have great concern about how Leonard Street is categorized on the committee''s maps, as category 5. Much too big. I would support 3-story apartments in Belmont Center and elsewhere.
  • I am concerned about how large buildings in Belmont Center, directly overlooking in our backyards, will affect our privacy. How will this be mitigated?
  • I live in the State Historic District and must comply with Historic District Commission guidelines to make any visible external changes to my home and surrounding property. Will the new buildings be required to conform to any aesthetic standard?
  • I understand that the reason to build multifamily housing close to public transit is so that people can commute via bus or commuter rail. The state wants to encourage more public transit use, a very worthy goal. Therefore it only makes sense that no parking be allocated to these buildings. If parking is allocated, then the entire concept will be seen as nonviable from the start."

10. Concerns over current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Rena Fonseca on February 14, 2024) - "Please put on the town website a clear map showing ALL the rezoning area choices available to Belmont and to your committee at the outset of this process, not just the final areas you have selected. The overwhelming majority of the town is in the dark about this rezoning, has no idea it’s happening, and would want to know what the whole range of choices are. That is a huge concern. And: the committee’s current plans and scenarios envisage destruction of a large part of, or all of, historic Belmont center - in flagrant violation of its own stated goals and principles. The MBTA Communities Goals and Principles document explicitly states (Goal 6): “Protect the essential character and scale of Belmont”; “avoid the historic district along Pleasant Street, historic sites and properties on the demolition delay lists for historically significant sites….protect key historic and/or architecturally important structures or blocks in Belmont. This Committee’s current plans are doing just the opposite."

11. Concerns over current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by John Beaty on February 13, 2024) - The objective of the MBTA Communities Program has two primary objectives in Belmont, MA: 1. to build 1632 residential units in Belmont. 2. 10% or 163 residential units need to be affordable. I think that both of these objectives are good and accomplishable. But, the result of the initial work of the Belmont MBTA committee has pit two parts of the community against one another and has made several decisions that favor one of the groups. Now the two groups are spending their time and intellect figuring how to minimize the impact of the Program in their area rather than looking at their area and trying finding likely building areas. [remainder not deemed appropriate].

12. General support for current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Will Jason on February 16, 2024) - I write in wholehearted support of good-faith implementation of the MBTA Communities Program. We should go beyond simple compliance and enact zoning changes that will lead to the construction of more housing. We should be mindful of the fiscal and economic impacts, and ensure that zoning changes under this program complement other work to strengthen Belmont''s finances. Finally, we should work proactively to communicate a positive vision to residents and to reduce the likelihood of a ballot question to repeal the new zoning (an informal campaign for this is already underway).

13. Suggestion for Committee Consideration (Comments submitted by Ira Mogenstern on February 19, 2024) - I applaud the region's MBTA process in addressing housing shortages and exclusionary communities. It is bold and creative public policy. The metrics MBTA asks Belmont to model against are focused only on compliance to this program. For sound decision making, towns need to add their own specific measures to assess if their proposals work towards each town's wider and long term needs. For Belmont, we need a measure on the impact on meaningfully improving our 5%, 95% profile. To increase our 5% commercial revenue percentage, we probably need multiple 4 to 7 story fully commercial use only structures. We cannot allow the current and future spaces for these commercial structures to be used for primarily residential projects. Last Thursday evening''s presentation, voting and discussions emphasized the need for a commercial development impact measure. For instance, a quantitative "commercial opportunity infringement factor" could be used. It would measure how much possible current and future multi-story commercial locations/zones (i.e. Pleasant St from the Police Station to Trapelo Rd) are included in our proposed 3A zones. A low score would be the goal. I am concerned that without a specific commercial measure, we are flying blind in assessing 3A options.

14. Concerns over current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Anonymous on February 19, 2024) - I worry about the new multi family homes impacting the schools. With the construction of the new high school we are finally getting class sizes down. Increasing the school population will undo the relief that the new building has provided.

15. General support for current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Erin M. on February 16, 2024) - I'm very happy that more housing will be built in the community. A SIGNIFICANT percentage of it should be designated as affordable.

16. Specific Zoning-Related Question or Comment (Comments submitted by Danielle Parrington on February 21, 2024) - I am concerned about the impact of potential development on Pleasant Street near Brighton Street. Pleasant Street sits significantly higher than Claflin St, and significant development would cause environmental impacts, water runoff, and would significantly impact the privacy of homes on Claflin Street that back up to Pleasant Street. Additionally, such development would significantly impact traffic in an already heavily trafficked area where many children walk to school at Winn Brook Elementary. There is also not sufficient room for parking for such a development.

17. General support for current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Mary Lewis on February 24, 2024) - I support doing this project as broadly as we can and including the Housing Authority properties. I was really disappointed to see the Star Market removed from contention as I could imagine a really cool mandatory mixed use development there. I would like to see it reconsidered if possible. Regardless, I am in favor of the version of this project that spreads the benefits around town and included the Claflin Parking lot and that maximizes mixed use as much as possible.

18. Suggestion for Committee Consideration (Comments submitted by Anonymous on February 24, 2024) - Just want you to be aware that I saw people “voting” multiple times with multiple red or green dots for the same zoning project at the last MBTA forum. Take those stickers with a grain of salt!

19. Specific District or Subdistrict-Related Question or Comment (Comments submitted by Holly Muson on February 25, 2024) - I appreciate the opportunity for the public to weigh in at the recent public forums. Regretfully, I was unable to attend in person on 2/15 due to a death in the family, but I did watch the Belmont Media recording, and saw the three options presented. I was unable to view Roy Epstein''s fourth proposal but understand it centers on Waverley, Belmont Center and Belmont Village. Of the three options I saw, I felt the first and third provide the best opportunity for reasonable growth options. However, I do not understand the recommendation to allow Zoning Level 5 along Concord Avenue to the southeast of the railroad bridge. The Concord/Common/Leonard intersection is already very congested with vehicular traffic, and it seems to me that allowing for up to 5 stories of mixed-use development in that area will result in even more cars trying to navigate that area. For pedestrians and cyclists, that intersection is nearly impossible to safely cross. So even though it''s physically proximate to the train station, there is no easy way to get there on foot from the south side of Concord to the east of Common Street. I hope that will be taken into consideration as you proceed through the decision process.

20. General support for current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Alisa Gardner-Todreas on February 24, 2024) - I fully support the effort to allow more multi-family housing in Belmont and I believe we should aim for at least 110% of the minimum required. Every town should do its part to alleviate the housing crisis before it becomes an economic crisis as well (since workers won''t be able to afford to live in the state and thus our economy will suffer).

21. Specific District or Subdistrict-Related Question or Comment (Comments submitted by Anonymous on March 2, 2024) - While reviewing the MBTA Communities advisory committee plan for multifamily zoning in Belmont, we noticed that only sections closed to the commuter rail stops are being considered for re-zoning. However, there is a large commuter population that lives in other areas of Belmont that heavily rely on the MBTA bus to commute on a daily basis. The MBTA a bus is very convenient to connect to the red line (e.g., Harvard Square) which allows people to commute directly to densely populated working zones such as Kendall and downtown Boston which are not easily accessible through the commuter rail. Additionally, there is a larger demand than housing supply in Belmont, especially in this zones that are attractive for public transportation purposes. With all this in mind, can you please consider reviewing other zones in Belmont that are close to MBTA bus stops (specifically the 73 MBTA bus stops) and that already have general zoning and multi-family to be changed to Subdistrict 3 or 1?

22. Concerns over current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Rebecca Frankel on March 25, 2024) - 'I''m going to come to the meeting on Friday and talk about this in person. But I thought to use this form to state my main concern in advance. In general I am strongly in favor of more development, and transit oriented development in particular. Both sides of my family benefited from relatively cheaper housing in Belmont which helped them gain a foothold in the United States as well educated but poor immigrants. I want new generations to have that option. I want my kids to go to school with the kids of such parents. But I think the MBTA Communities law is a disastrously bad method to implement that goal. Generally speaking, I want development guided by planning. For instance, the New York times recently profiled an architecture firm in New York City that was hired to find spots for a million more New Yorkers: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/30/opinion/new-york-housing-solution.html. Notably they carefully avoided flood zones, something I concerned the MBTA Communities mandate will not do. Many of the houses in my neighborhood are rated 9 or 10 by Flood Factor, meaning there is already nearly 100% probability they will flood in the next 30 years. (I''ve attached flood maps) Just dropping new zoning rights into such a neighborhood without precautions is deeply fraught. It doesn't help affordability if the new "affordable" units eventually become un-insurable because of frequent flooding. It defrauds current owners if new development forces floodwaters away, potentially destroying the value of their investment. That is a real, imminent possibility in this neighborhood. I''ve viewed with some envy how other town have intensively planned their redevelopment: https://www.bostonplans.org/planning/planning-initiatives/plan-charlestown. Why can''t we do something like that here?  Another concern is that the MBTA would mandate new zoning in areas not currently actually served by the MBTA. The train doesn't actually stop on Brighton/Blanchard St. Because of the traffic jams on Concord Ave and over the bridge, it can take an absurdly long time to get to Alewife during the peak commuter hours. The presence of the rail line there makes it more, rather than less, difficult to commute. Why have development in the name of transit when there is no actual transit? This isn''t just trolling: development is planned with the existing transit in mind --- the amount of parking and so on will reflect the developer''s projections about whether the prospective renters will *actually* take the train to work. The time to do transit oriented development is when the developers can plan with transit that actually exists, so the neighborhood doesn't get saddled with unnecessary parking and gridlocked roads. This is a burning issue in this neighborhood because the prospects for transit are changing: eventually an electrified commuter rail could stop at that crossing. That would completely change the type and style of development that would make sense in the neighborhood. I would want to reserve the potential upscaled zoning as a negotiating position to fight for a train stop (and other things the town needs). Right now the town is considering simply placating the state now with, say, zoning rights for a few dozen more units. For that concession the town gets nothing, except avoiding a Milton style fight. Instead, I would suggest counter offering aggressively. March into the governors office and propose: not dozens, but a hundred or more new units in a fifteen year time frame. But if the state wants it, we need things in return. We need (a) a train that actually stops, with a station (b) real stormwater management infrastructure and related green space (and, ambitiously, community geothermal? Works best in wet areas, you know.) (b) support for seniors being priced out by rising property taxes (c) space for mixed use and business oriented development so new residents can walk to buy a gallon of milk (d) support for schools to offset the costs of the growing student community (e) a plan by a real urban planner that takes all these concerns into account.  Another concern is that "transit oriented development" is being bandied about a buzzword without realizing that such development in Japan, for instance, works well because the train system gets a cut of the profits from real estate development around train stations. That''s the main reason why Japanese city trains are profitable while American ones are not. Financial arrangements like this are an often overlooked but important detail. Merely copying the outward form of such successful models without understanding their mechanisms is a recipe for disappointment. Why give away zoning rights to undeserving developers when the MBTA could hold onto them and use it to subsidize their operations?  The MBTA law is good-hearted, but details of the implementation of legal and financial arrangements have to be thought through to really work. And this law hasn't thought them through. I am passionate about the potential redeveloped future of Brighton/Blanchard street. I think with proper planning the neighborhood could support many more residents with better walkable commerce, better stormwater management, better transit and better financial support of both seniors and the school system. But all this would require real thought and real planning. For that reason I''m likely to bitterly opposed simply placating the governor with new zoning rights in the neighborhood right now. It means the town is giving away value that could be used as a bargaining chip instead. This neighborhood in particular cannot support development without bargaining for better infrastructure in exchange.

23. General support for current MBTA Communities Program (Comments submitted by Katherine Baratta on April 2, 2024) - 'Would love to see Waverley Sq revitalized with more housing and commercial. If designed properly people who would move in to that neighborhood would not need to drive everywhere.