Belmont Center Overlay

"Looking to Town Meeting on March 4, we will all lose, regardless of the outcome, with a sharply divided town."

- Michael Widmer

Overview

The Select Board and Planning Board should revise the current proposal to address critical open issues, reduce the scale, eliminate the by-right provision, phase in the proposal, and tighten up the zoning language.

During my long tenure as Belmont Town Moderator, I often counseled Select Board members 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 Belmont Center overlay proposal has serious flaws and falls way short of being ready for prime time.

The issue is not whether some development of Belmont Center is a good idea but whether this specific 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) that would destroy the character of Belmont Center and very likely result in the closing of most small businesses now in the Center. There is no community in Massachusetts that has undertaken anything of this scale in such a small downtown area.

The Select Board and Planning Board have essentially punted on the problem of parking for a proposed 500 new rental units and 1200 employees of new commercial businesses — all in a one-block area. Similarly, there is no plan to deal with the obvious compounding of traffic problems which already choke the Center at key times of the day.

But what about the Select Board’s repeated claims that the Belmont Center proposal will provide property tax relief and more funding for the schools?

Unfortunately, that is a fabrication.

Working with several other Belmont residents who, like me, are economic and financial analysts, we have expanded on the town’s fiscal work and concluded that the proposal would break even at best, and more likely would result in a loss to taxpayers. In essence, the additional revenues from commercial development would be more than offset by additional costs, principally the costs of educating additional children.

In short, the overlay proposal might well worsen the town’s finances, requiring cuts in services or larger override requests.

Building heights need to be reduced — Belmont Center’s geographic footprint is smaller than the centers of our surrounding towns. Retaining a town feel in the Center requires smaller buildings than are being proposed. Not only will the smaller scale be a better fit with our historic town center, but the reduced share of residential units will improve the fiscal impact.

The overlay should not be “by right” — Under by-right zoning, the town will have limited ability to influence projects built in the Center. 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 to a less formal Rules and Regulations section that can be modified by the Planning Board without Town Meeting approval. None of this critical text has been made public and it won’t even be considered at the March 4 Special Town Meeting.

The overlay should be phased in — Phasing in sections of the Center would provide an opportunity for mid-course corrections, which does not exist under the current sweeping proposal. This is essential given the large uncertainties around something of this scale in the years ahead, as well as our limited ability to fix problems that may arise because of grandfathering rules that would apply to many projects. And keep in mind that existing local business and 3A zoning in the Center already allows for a great deal of new development.

Looking to Town Meeting on March 4, we will all lose, regardless of the outcome, with a sharply divided town. With changes of this magnitude, the Select Board’s goal should be to develop a proposal that produces a broad consensus. Sadly the current proposal fails that test.

- Michael Widmer, January 2026

Summary and Suggestions

During my long tenure as Belmont Town Moderator I often counseled Select Board members 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 Belmont Center overlay proposal has serious flaws and falls way short of being ready for prime time.

The issue is not whether some development of Belmont Center is a good idea but whether this specific 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) that would destroy the character of Belmont Center and very likely result in the closing of most small businesses now in the Center. There is no community in Massachusetts that has undertaken anything of this scale in such a small downtown area.

The Select Board and Planning Board have essentially punted on the problem of parking for a proposed 500 new rental units and 1200 employees of new commercial businesses — all in a one-block area. Similarly, there is no plan to deal with the obvious compounding of traffic problems which already choke the Center at key times of the day.

But what about the Select Board’s repeated claims that the Belmont Center proposal will provide property tax relief and more funding for the schools?

Unfortunately, that is a fabrication.

Working with several other Belmont residents who, like me, are economic and financial analysts, we have expanded on the town’s fiscal work and concluded that the proposal would break even at best, and more likely would result in a loss to taxpayers. In essence, the additional revenues from commercial development would be more than offset by additional costs, principally the costs of 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 development of Belmont Center? Absolutely not. The Select Board and Planning Board should revise the current proposal in at least three major areas — reduce the scale, eliminate the by-right provision, and phase in the proposal.

Building heights need to be reduced — Belmont Center’s geographic footprint is smaller than the centers of our surrounding towns. Retaining a town feel in the Center requires smaller buildings than are being proposed. Not only will the smaller scale be a better fit with our historic town center, but the reduced share of residential units will improve the fiscal impact.

The overlay should not be “by right” — Under by-right zoning, the town will have limited ability to influence projects built in the Center. 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 to a less formal Rules and Regulations section that can be modified by the Planning Board without Town Meeting approval. None of this critical text has been made public and it won’t even be considered at the March 4 Special Town Meeting.

The overlay should be phased in — Phasing in sections of the Center would provide an opportunity for mid-course corrections, which does not exist under the current sweeping proposal. This is essential given the large uncertainties around something of this scale in the years ahead, as well as our limited ability to fix problems that may arise because of grandfathering rules that would apply to many projects. And keep in mind that existing local business and 3A zoning in the Center already allows for a great deal of new development.

Looking to Town Meeting on March 4, we will all lose, regardless of the outcome, with a sharply divided town. With changes of this magnitude, the Select Board’s goal should be to develop a proposal that produces a broad consensus. Sadly the current proposal fails that test.

- Michael Widmer, January 2026

Frequently asked questions

General

At the Monday Jan 26 SB meeting Peg Callahan requested a citizen forum on the Belmont Center Overlay to help educate Belmont citizens on the proposed zoning. Matt Taylor declined to support or have the Town participate in a citizen forum, saying there were enough public forums on the overlay already. Your response implies you feel people are educated on the issues. There have been a good number of public forums, particularly earlier in the process. The attendees were primarily those that were heavily invested in the issues, including abutters, Leonard St Business owners, etc. Busy citizens likely did not watch or participate, as it was not close to a vote. At the Precinct 7 caucus in January, we did a quick poll to see how many of the 21 attendees felt they were familiar with the Belmont Center Overlay issues. Approximately 6 out of 21 (29%) were somewhat familiar, with most being quite tentative. These are TMM who invest a lot of their time to be up to date on Belmont Issues. How do you think the same poll of Belmont citizens turn out? 2. The Proposal has changed significantly, with the Hotel now limited to 150 rooms, the Belmont Center overlay separated from the Hotel zoning, traffic and parking issues not decided, and there have been no numbers from the Select Board or Planning Board that show the likely financial impact with the many changes made.

As noted above, neither the Planning Board nor the Select Board have provided updated an updated financial Analysis that shows the very substantial changes since August 2025, the date of the last Financial Impact Analysis. The Select Board has 2 highly numerate members, who likely could have put together credible numbers in a few days.They chose not to provide this critical input for decision making, on this Zoning the SB claims is critical for the Town. Instead, the Warrant Committee, was asked to produce projections and then opine on them. This is a very unusual role for the Warrant Committee.

Hotels generally need an annual average occupancy of approximately 71% to break even. Business travelers are the critical element to make Hotels be viable. Hotels are typically located to attract business travelers, being close to major routes like 90, 95, 2, and 3 to serve a larger footprint, close to large business centers and large business headquarters, and in locations that avoid traffic bottlenecks. Return business travelers are gold. The envisioned 150 room hotel at Concord and Common, does not meet the criteria above. Discussions with those with hotel and commercial experience results in strong reactions that this is NOT a good location for a hotel. Their view is a hotel will never get built at that location. Why was this included in the original Belmont Center Overlay Fiscal Impact at 53x rooms? If a 150 room hotel is very unlikely, 53x rooms is illogical, except if its financial impact smoke screen helps get the BCO Zoning proposals voted in. Don't include the financial impact of the Hotel in your assessment of the BCO or (hotel District) zoning financials. It is not real, likely, or even possible by a developer looking for a decent financial return

We performed a highly researched and carefully considered Financial Analysis Impact of the Belmont Center Overlay. Our analysis showed a likely annual loss of $250,000 to a $1,000,000 loss for the Town. The Warrant Committee conclusion was that the full buildout would not have a material financial impact on our Town, given a total budget of $160m in 2026 $. This will not moderate overrides or provide monies to fill School critical gaps in spending.

Impact on Business Community

Many in the Leonard Street business community have expressed deep worries about the Belmont Center Overlay.

During the construction of their current spaces, individual stores will be forced to close for 12 to 18 months or more. This interruption in income will be deadly for these small businesses. Many will never reopen.
The rents for the rebuilt stores on Leonard Street will be much higher to give the real estate owners an adequate return. Our current Leonard Street retailers, and most mom and pop stores, do not have the resources to handle rents two to three times the current levels.

Example:

At the corner of Washington St and Walnut St in Newton, the prior 1 and 2 story buildings were bought out for a mixed-use development.

All of the existing tenants had to move due to the construction; none have returned.

Letter from local business owner, Deran Muckjian:

First, I am not opposed to development in Belmont. As a local business owner in the center, as well as a Town Meeting Member, I want what is best for Belmont. But I do have to protect my business and well-being of my family. I do feel that this is a risky attempt at urban development that will chase our business out of Town. The long range perceived gain is far outweighed by the risk of disruption and destruction of buildings in the center. During the construction, businesses will either shut down or close for good.

This interruption in business could put me out of business. Then there is no guarantee any of our small businesses who will be affected will resurface at a later date. Also, the end result of rebuilt stores will be higher rents to provide adequate return on their investment. My businesses do not have the business model to handle rents two to three times higher than what I am paying.

I have been in retail my whole life and turnover in the center can be caused many factors. Online shopping has affected all small and major retailers across our country. For the customers who continually shop local, thank you. But remember consumers shop by habit and when we break this habit during construction, we will lose them. They will go to the next best spot and we might never get them back. Around 30% of my revenue comes from consumers who live in surrounding towns and cannot believe what Belmont wants to do to our center. They only wish their Towns had such wonderful stores. I am talking about customers from Watertown, Arlington, Cambridge, and Waltham.

I am very concerned if the construction does happen, where do the new residents park and more importantly, our customers. Adding hundreds of apartments will cause parking and traffic nightmares. How is this good for Belmont residents?

Leonard Street is a small historic district that should be enhanced not destroyed; towns like Concord and Winchester strive to maintain their look as we should. Emulating Arsenal Mall is opposite of what Belmont should want our center to look like. We should be thankful that we have only two empty store fronts out of 46 locations. We have three new businesses coming into

our center at this time. We never want to see anyone go out of business, but this happens and I have experienced this for myself, closing one of my stores.

Finally, I have visited other Towns who have been through what the overlay would do. Two Towns who have done mixed-use projects, Reading and Newton, both have two common results: driving out existing tenants and substantially higher rents. Please treasure what we have, remember the small business in the center are responsible for the running of events, like Town Day, Holiday Lights, Flowers in the center, as well as all the charitable donations we give to. Lose any of us and you may lose something so dear to Belmont.

Thank You,

Deran Muckjian

Small Business Owner/ Resident for over 60 years

Financial Impact

For the past year the Select Board, Planning Board and town planner have touted the fiscal benefits of the Belmont Center overlay proposal as the main purpose for such a massive development. Unfortunately, this is a fantasy. The overlay will not provide additional funding for our schools nor will it lead to fewer or smaller overrides.

In fact, the overlay may actually cost the town money, requiring cuts in school services or larger overrides. This conclusion is based on a detailed analysis of the overlay’s financial impact on the town, building on the original model with a broad review of available data on key inputs from surrounding towns.. The analysis first calculates the likely apartment mix from a full buildout of the zoning, and then estimates the number of school-aged children moving into the new apartments and the incremental school costs of these children.

As a result, the town would lose an estimated $250,000 a year under a full buildout. This is a conservative estimate since it assumes that only 118 students will move into the more than 400 new apartments. Apartment mix is entirely at the discretion of the developer. Given the attraction of Belmont schools and the close proximity of the Center to elementary, middle and high schools, the number of new students could be much higher, causing a bigger drain on town finances.

Furthermore, this analysis assumes two floors of commercial and the higher floors (up to three additional floors) residential, which is consistent with the town’s proposal. However, because of a weak commercial market and the great demand for new housing, the town may end up with one floor of commercial and the rest residential. In that case, the town would lose $1 million a year.

In conclusion, the town is likely to lose money under such a massive development. And that doesn’t speak to the huge parking and traffic problems of 400 new residential units and 1,200 new employees. Such a large-scale development would force the closure of virtually all of our existing small businesses on Leonard Street, permanently destroying the Center’s small-town character.

Our Analysis

There are three key variables in calculating the future revenues and expenses from the Center overlay proposal — the mix of apartments, the number of school-aged children, and the cost per child. In our analysis, we conducted extensive research on the apartment mix and school-aged children variables, and updated the per child costs to reflect the FY2026 budget.

Apartment mix. To develop more extensive data for estimating a likely mix of apartments resulting from the full buildout, we collected data on 43 developments located in Belmont and other neighboring and comparable towns, all of which were either built within the last 20 years or are detailed in recent town reports as being in advanced planning stages. This provides a more realistic picture of what could be built in town, given the decade or more over which the redevelopment will happen and the fact that developers will have total discretion on what mix of apartment sizes to build. The other towns included Arlington, Braintree, Lexington, Melrose, Newton, Watertown, and Wellesley.

Calculating weighted averages of the apartment unit mixes in these developments and applying these averages to a full buildout in Belmont Center, we estimate 408 apartments could be produced under the overlay, of which 7 percent would be studios, 46 percent one-bedroom units, 40 percent two-bedroom units, and 7 percent three-bedroom units.

School-aged children. Similarly, using available data from several surrounding communities (Arlington, Lexington, Newton, Watertown, and Wellesley) consisting of 5,420 apartment units housing 1,543 school-aged children, we developed weighted averages of school-aged children by unit size, with separate apartment units and estimates for market rate and affordable units. That produced a combined figure of 118 new school-aged children across all 408 units. As described above, this is likely a conservative estimate.

Educational cost per child. As the final step in calculating school costs, we examined Belmont’s FY2026 school budget and estimated an updated cost per student of $15,489. Similar to the Warrant Committee’s estimate, this number includes the costs of health care for school employees included in the town’s shared services budget. Educational costs per child, done last summer by a town contractor, erroneously excluded the cost of benefits from their fiscal analysis.

More information on the main differences between our analysis and those done by the OPB and the Warrant Committee can be found here.

Zoning Language

The zoning proposal is seriously flawed.

Drafting problems remain. The bylaw text before Town Meeting includes many drafting errors regarding definitions, references, and internal contradictions.
Inadequate oversight. The bylaw's by-right provisions deprive the town of adequate control and protections. In key areas such as hotels, these greatly exceed what surrounding towns have done.
Key guardrails removed from zoning. Though promised to residents at public meetings, included as part of earlier discussions, and integral to how the zoning will operate, key sections have been removed from the overlay bylaw. In some cases, text has been promised for a future Town Meeting. In other cases, elements may be dropped, or put into a less formal set of town "Rules and Regulations". Text in all areas has not been finalized or publicly reviewed. Gaps include management of the development process to protect merchants, pre-construction site testing to protect adjacent historic structures, oversight of parking waivers, and review of project design.
Overlay shifts authority for key elements of zoning the town from the legislative branch (Town Meeting) to the executive branch (via the appointed Planning Board). This is being done using “Rules and Regulations” and covers a larger array of issues than seems to be authorized by State laws in this area.
Missing reviews on infrastructure and public safety. No detailed analysis of the potential infrastructure costs for electricity, water, sewer, sidewalks and safety, or who would pay for required upgrades, has been made public. Such costs can be very large, and assessments are normally included in fiscal evaluations. Whether the costs drive up property taxes or utility rates, the residents will bear the costs.

Scale/Rendering

What will Leonard St look like with a full buildout of the Belmont Center Overlay?

The Town has not provided a current rendering, so we have contracted to have one made. It should be posted to this site shortly.

In the interim, let’s look at what Leonard St is currently zoned for:

Yes, it is where Tatte Bakery & Cafe is located at 495 Trapelo Rd. It is a 3 story building with a restaurant on the 1st floor and residences on the 2nd and 3rd floor.

The Belmont Center Overlay wants to add up to 2 more floors if this was located in the Center.

Traffic and parking

Adequate parking in Belmont Center has been a major concern for merchants and customers alike. The overlay plan will make a difficult situation impossible. The proposal has absolutely no provisions to support parking for 400-500 new apartments and 1,200 new employees.

Instead, the overlay sets artificially low parking minimums for new construction. The town argues there is adequate parking on private lots, in the public Claflin lot, and on city streets. However:

The largest private lots within the overlay district are already being used, and are attractive parcels to build due to the overlay, which would remove that capacity.
The overlay gives wide authority to the Planning Board to grant parking waivers and to collect payments in lieu of parking. However, virtually all details on its rules and oversight process have yet to be developed.
Payments in lieu of parking may create responsibilities on the town for a municipal garage (such a structure was included in earlier versions of the Center overlay). These can cost tens of millions of dollars to build and there has been no review of town exposure.
The overlay allows public spaces, including on streets, to be allocated to private parties under certain conditions.

Further, there are inconsistencies in the residential parking provisions. The parking consultant recommended allotting 0.8 spaces per residential unit. In light of the consultant’s report, the Planning Board voted in October to increase minimum parking from 0.3 spaces per unit to 0.5. However, the zoning bylaw before Town Meeting continues to require only 0.3 spaces per unit.

Inevitably, this shortfall will lead to a later proposal to allow overnight on-street parking in nearby residential neighborhoods. Indeed, public officials have made conflicting statements on whether or not they will pursue overnight street parking near the center; the zoning leaves the path for overnight parking open. Tellingly, the Select Board voted unanimously on February 9th to oppose Bob McGaw's amendment to prohibit on-street overnight parking.

Citizen Petitions and Actions

- Coming Soon -

Belmont Center Overlay

Overview

Summary and Suggestions

Frequently asked questions

Is there an upcoming citizen forum I can attend?

Did the Planning Board or the Select Board share updated Financial Impact analysis based on the current Belmont Center Overlay Zoning?

Is a hotel realistic in Center Gateway Overlay District covering 365 to 395 Concord Ave?

Will this Belmont Center Overlay provide a net cash flow benefit to the town or the schools?