Selected Comments
The following links to letters, articles, and interviews capture the views of Belmont residents who share many of our concerns. They are reposted unedited.
January 16, 2026
During my tenure as town moderator, I often counseled Select Board members on 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 proposed Belmont Center overlay is not ready for prime time.
The issue is not whether some development of Belmont Center is a good idea but whether this 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) destroying Belmont Center’s character and potentially forcing most of our small businesses to close. No similar Massachusetts community has undertaken anything of this scale in a one-block area.
Furthermore, Town leaders have punted on addressing parking needs of 500 new rental units and 1,200 employees of new businesses, and the compounding of current traffic problems.
But what about the Select Board’s repeated claims that the Center proposal will provide property tax relief and more funding for the schools?
Unfortunately, that is a fabrication.
Working with several Belmont residents who, like me, are economic and financial analysts, we have concluded that the proposal would break even at best, and more likely result in a loss. New revenues from commercial development would be more than offset by additional costs, principally 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 developing Belmont Center? Absolutely not. Town leaders should revise the current proposal in at least three major areas — reducing scale, eliminating by-right provisions, and phasing in the proposal.
Belmont Center’s geographic footprint is smaller than the centers of our surrounding towns. Retaining the Center’s historic town requires smaller buildings than those proposed.
Under by-right zoning, the town will have limited ability to influence future Center projects. 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 and can be modified by the Planning Board without Town Meeting approval.
Phasing in sections of the Center would provide an opportunity for corrections, essential given the large uncertainties around something of this scale. Furthermore, current local business and 3A zoning in the Center allow for significant development.
Finally, we will all lose with a sharply divided Town Meeting. The Select Board’s goal should be to develop a broad consensus. Sadly the current proposal fails that test.
- Michael Widmer, Gilbert Road
February 16, 2026
Dear Town Meeting Members,
My name is Jeff Birenbaum. I previously served as Chair of the Planning Board and as a full member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am writing to share my perspective regarding the proposed overlay district currently before you.
At the outset, I want to be clear: I am not opposed to thoughtful rezoning efforts. Strategic zoning can strengthen our town by creating predictability, encouraging appropriate development, and providing transparency for both the municipality and prospective developers. When done properly, it is one of the most powerful tools we have to shape long-term outcomes.
However, I do not believe the proposal currently before you is the right step at this time nor is it fully developed.
Zoning should follow planning. Before adopting a significant overlay, the Town should first update, solidify, and formally adopt its Master Plan. A comprehensive and current Master Plan provides the framework from which zoning changes should logically flow. It ensures that decisions about density, use, scale, traffic impacts, parking, infrastructure, and economic vitality are evaluated holistically rather than in isolation.
As presented, this overlay feels piecemeal. Critical considerations — including safety, parking demand, traffic circulation, and overall scale — deserve broader integration within a comprehensive planning effort rather than being addressed in fragments.
With respect to the proposed hotel component specifically, there are also practical realities to consider. From a development feasibility standpoint, a 100+ key hotel constructed over existing assets in today’s construction environment is unlikely to “pencil out.” Conceivably, a hotel could “pencil out” with tax incentives or a public private partnership with the town but that means the town would be either outlaying cash or losing potential revenue to get a hotel of this size and stature built. Construction costs remain elevated, and financial feasibility is a significant factor in whether such a project would ever materialize. If the economics are not viable, the zoning change may be predicated on a use that is unlikely to be built.
Even if it were feasible, I do not believe a 100+ room hotel is appropriate for the scale and character of our town. The location proposed is also questionable given is proximity to children and causes concern for safety in that vital corridor.
When I previously raised the topic during my tenure as Chair of the Planning Board, I was referring to a boutique-scale concept — approximately 40 keys — potentially owner-operated, context-sensitive, and architecturally integrated into the character of the community. That is a fundamentally different model than a larger, standardized development.
Zoning decisions shape a town for decades. They deserve to be grounded in an updated Master Plan and evaluated within a comprehensive framework of which both are missing in this current endeavor put before you.
For these reasons, if postponement is not available as an option, I recommend a vote of "no" at this time.
Respectfully, Jeff Birenbaum
January 16, 2026
Belmont Journal, interviewed by Joanna Tzouvelis
Mike Widmer, Former Town Moderator, speaks about why he and other residents are opposed to the proposed zoning changes for Belmont Center, which will be voted on at a Special Town Meeting on March 4th.
February 2026
The overlay is a clarion call for increased commercial tax revenue and housing. We need both!
However, I question the estimated net revenues and worry about nebulous responses regarding infrastructure costs, parking and traffic/congestion solutions, and funding to enhance the town staff to handle such a complex development.
Many have challenged planners on school costs, or the very low car/unit or /work-site ratios. In addition, low build-out means permitting fees (not detailed in public forums) trickle in, so who pays (and when) up-front costs of new/incremental sewer and water systems, electrical, and transformer upgrades, or significant investments in new streets and pedestrian safety (the latter in which Belmont already lags badly). How does our stressed operating budget front-load hiring planning, engineering and permitting personnel required (and on what timing) to support this plan?
Another concern: Property owners lose lease income for at least two or three years, then borrow heavily to raze and build.
They have to recruit new businesses to the new properties and sell the housing. That’s a major undertaking and fraught with huge financial risk. To encourage them, has the town modeled lost or “forgiven” tax revenue as old properties come off-line? Does the developer/owner ask the town for additional tax abatements to help fund their portion of sewer, water, utility and streets/scapes work, until lease income builds? Once online, does the property owner apply for further reduction of taxes over the initial years of operation? Any of these costs further reduces the return on investment overlay proponents’ project.
Bottom line, the overlay plan does not seem fully baked yet. Residents need more concrete explanations and numbers. A more modest proposal would reduce the concerns of many about serious degrading of the “town center” environment — looking like a checkerboard where one or two projects proceed at full height but other one-story buildings remain, or a canyon of too-tall edifices if somehow fully developed. As is, do a majority of residents have the full confidence “we” have a successful and detailed plan, and are we ready to pull the trigger?
- Larry Link, Orchard Street
February 10, 2026
It’s time to talk about strategy and leadership. We have heard that the Center Overlay is a shining example of “good government” - thoughtful compromises, best practices, and expert-led progress that we should all cheer for.
But let’s call this process for what it really is - one of the most divisive examples of policymaking in Belmont in the past fifty years -with spin that utterly ignores the wreckage it's causing.
Here’s what I’ve unfortunately come to conclude - this entire process is tearing our town in half - neighbors against neighbors, customers against business owners, and volunteer against volunteer. We have seen litmus tests deciding who's "loyal" enough to serve, bullying and threats silencing dissent, and real concerns (traffic, historic impacts, businesses not invited to weigh in to either the select or planning board process) completely dismissed.
We’ve seen town meeting members publicly attacked and smeared, long-time leaders ignored and dismissed, and for what? Has anyone actually answered the question about what ‘vibrancy’ means? Is Belmont prepared for the complete reconstruction of the entire Locatelli block from CVS to Champions? Everything our local merchants and property owners have built is at risk.
And the line we’ve heard that rejection or pause tells volunteers “not to bother”? Pure manipulative fearmongering. It betrays residents who want sustainable growth, that have good ideas, that want to be listened to!
Take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums aren't democratic. They're degrading and divisive. Good government brings good people who disagree to the table - without personal attacks, railroading, dismissal, or replacement. Belmont is too small and too connected for the exclusion we have seen and experienced.
We should all be unhappy about the division this project has generated. But we cannot give up on Belmont. We deserve leaders who unite us, who articulate real strategy and engagement - not division.
- Paul Joy
February 4, 2026
While I support improving Belmont zoning to encourage commercial and residential uses, I do not support the proposed Belmont Center Overlay District zoning in its current form. It needs work. I submitted amendments to delay the zoning so it could be fixed and resubmitted to a later Town Meeting.
The proposed zoning has errors and is incomplete: The proposed zoning refers to and relies on non-existent provisions that are yet to be drafted. The 60 pages of zoning in Warrant Articles 2 and 3 are confusing and are daunting to read.
Belmont deserves a well-drafted, understandable, enforceable, and unambiguous zoning by- law. More clarifying definitions are needed. Defined terms should be used consistently.
Clarification is needed as to how the proposed Belmont Center overlay district will interact with the various MBTA multi-family housing overlay districts in Belmont Center. Provisions with undefined, unenforceable, aspirational concepts - such as encouraging a “vibrant, walkable environment,” “ensuring harmonious relationship between different land use intensities” - need to be grouped with the aspirational “purposes” instead of being seeded among the legalistic zoning specifics. Excessive architectural details need to be reconsidered, e.g., requiring two-inch “expression lines” on multi-story buildings.
I also submitted amendments addressing parking and overnight on-street parking.
The overlay zoning for housing ignores the parking reality: It requires only 0.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit. So, doing the math, if there were 10 dwelling units built in Belmont Center, only three parking spaces would be required. BUT, typically, there would be at least one car owner in each dwelling unit. Even if the residents walk, bike, or bus to work, where will they park overnight if there aren’t enough parking spaces provided for them? Will housing in Belmont Center be attractive if dwellers have no place to park overnight? Current zoning elsewhere in Belmont requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit (but only one parking space if the unit has fewer than two bedrooms), and that standard should apply in Belmont Center. Overnight on-street parking should not be allowed.
- Robert E. McGaw, Louise Road
February 9, 2026
Is it too much to ask our elected leaders to correct the misinformation circulating about the two Overlay proposals? Certainly, they are aware of it, have the facts, and should responsibly inform the public that rezoning the Center itself will not have significant financial benefits.
The purpose of rezoning Belmont Center was to increase commercial taxes and prevent overrides, giving homeowners tax relief. An anticipated profit with a hotel in the Center Overlay disappeared when the hotel was removed, resulting in a possible financial gain of less than 1% of our annual budget, with a full Center buildout (two floors of commercial with 500 apartments).
The allowance of a hotel on Concord Avenue is now in a different Overlay, requiring a separate vote. It’s not necessary to destroy the Center shops and character for massive development for minimal financial benefit.
The Center Overlay isn’t the only option:
1) Current zoning allows for buildings similar to Tatte (Waverley). The former CVS and Bank of America buildings can be redeveloped now.
2) There are parcels in Belmont Center that were rezoned by Town Meeting under 3A.
3) Planning Board (PB) approved a better-scaled rezoning plan in June 2025 for Local Business districts 2 and 3, and the General Business district.
Proposed by PB Vice Chair, Carol Berberian, for fall Town Meeting 2025, it would’ve allowed for more commercial space and apartments, like the Tatte building. Our current Select Board rejected it in favor of more dense development, up to five stories of stores and 500 apartments.
The choice is yours, except it’s not. Town Meeting Members will decide. Contact your representative and ask them to vote to preserve Belmont’s character while adding needed improvements with a more responsible plan, and bring our community together by honoring what the residents want.
- Susanne Croy, Stults Road
February 20, 2026
Many Belmont parents have rallied around the Center overlay proposal under the false impression that it will produce money for our schools. I sympathize with their wishes since my wife and I have been staunch supporters of Belmont’s schools for the past 50 years.
However, the sad truth is the overlay proposal may actually cost the town money, producing deficits that will require larger overrides or cuts in school funding.
This conclusion - that the town will lose an estimated $250,000 a year under a full buildout - is the result of a detailed independent analysis of the overlay’s impact on the town’s finances conducted by four long-time Belmont residents, all of us financial and economic analysts. It is outlined in detail in the upcoming Belmont Citizens Forum newsletter.
The analysis assumes two floors of commercial and the higher floors residential, 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 upper floors residential. In that case, the town would lose an estimated $1 million a year.
In addition to losing money, there are no plans to address the huge parking and traffic problems of 400 new residential units and 1,200 new employees. And unfortunately, such a massive development would force the closure of virtually all existing small businesses on Leonard Street, permanently destroying the Center’s small-town character.
Belmont should certainly pursue commercial development but not such a seriously flawed proposal. In the next few months, we should work together to produce a more reasonable proposal that can win broad community support.
For independent commentary on the overlay proposal, please visit belmontbetterzoning.org.
- Michael Widmer, Gilbert Road
February 16, 2026
I write to observe that what the supporters of the Belmont Center Overlay describe as its goals – more vibrant commercial establishments, a wider menu of housing alternatives and increased revenue for the Town – have already happened in Waverley Square under existing LB1 zoning.
A busy “Tatte” is open; “Wonder,” an exciting concept restaurant, is opening mid-February. New apartments (22 of them) above these establishments have been created and are already occupied. If the town permits, a second building will add yet more interesting commercial establishments and 44 new apartments.
This development has access to both commuter rail and bus service. Numerous shops and services are within easy walking distance, such as a small grocery store across the street. And it fronts on the major artery, Trapelo Road, so best prepared for additional traffic.
With this real example, why are we being asked to approve a huge, highly experimental rezoning that jeopardizes the character of the town, adversely impacts our current businesses, offers no meaningful net revenue gain, and rests largely on assumptions offered by a third-tier consulting firm?
Wouldn’t it be more prudent to look for refinements to our LB1 zoning, examine possible extensions, and measure the financial impact of an actual development?
- Elisabeth (Liz) Allison, Pinehurst Road
January 30, 2026
I am writing to urge residents to study the Belmont Center Zoning Overlay Proposal very carefully. On March 4, Town Meeting members will vote on whether to support or oppose the proposal.
Unfortunately, the Select Board has failed to reach a consensus among residents regarding the proposal. Supporters are in lockstep with the Select Board yet unwilling to engage in a forum or debate on the merits of the plan. They point to the vacancies in the Center as “not a good sign.” Yet they fail to acknowledge that the town has absolutely no control over the rents charged.
They claim that the changes to the center will be “modest” and “will strengthen our strained local budget.” Parents are being told that support of the overlay will bring additional property tax relief and more funding for schools.
While our Warrant Committee is developing a fiscal analysis of the zoning overlay, such promises have yet to be shown.
Business owners and abutters alike continue to express their fears of the outcome of the zoning changes, should they be approved. Many business owners believe they would have to shut down. To date, the Select Board’s only response to the parking and traffic obstacles inherent in this plan is to say, “It is a transit-oriented plan.” The potential for 500 new rental units and 1,200 new employees in this one-block area should be reconsidered. Traffic and parking study reports are vague and require additional analysis.
The Overlay zoning proposal appears to be rushed. It is not too late for the Select Board to take a step back and dismiss the zoning articles to a fall Town Meeting. By delaying a vote in March, we can come together as a community in support of a more reasonable, scaled-down zoning plan. Change is coming. Change can be welcomed but only when residents understand the full impact of the significant changes proposed.
- Peg Callanan, Sargent Road
January 27, 2026
In six weeks, Town Meeting will grapple with the largest single zoning change we’ve ever faced - to be handled in the same way a revision to the parking ordinance would. Those who have concerns about the proposed Belmont Center Overlay district will speak those concerns, standing at a microphone. One by one, members will get their two or three minutes, seeking to understand the validity or veracity of the town’s formidable perspectives and positions. They’ll likely be responded to by a fully unified body of town representatives, and summarily be told their concerns have already been addressed or are unfounded…Next!
Kind of an uneven matchup, no?
Yes, the town has had many information sessions, following just this format. Based on those, they see no need to have a sit-down discussion with qualified, informed, and knowledgeable members of the community in a moderated and expansive panel-based forum.
This overlay is nothing short of eliminating a perfectly enjoyable, warm, and vibrant Belmont Center, with potentially permanent and massive impacts to residents, merchants, and the community.
But we are being told, “It will be worth it, trust us.” Vibrancy, equity, and sustainability are in the revised mantra. Unlimited large franchises and densification are now on the table.
“Generic” should be added to the list. Good-bye Nick’s Place, hello Jersey Mikes et. al. So far, we’re seeing scant evidence of “worth it” in the financial models.
The town should not hide behind one-sided “information sessions.” A forum would provide a meaningful discussion of the possibility of inherent, substantive flaws and risks, rather than focusing only on well-crafted rewards. A select group would present findings, raise concerns, and ask considered and well-founded questions. In other words, a level playing field. Residents should hear directly from knowledgeable, qualified voices who see things other than through the rose-colored-glasses-only perspective of the Planning and Select Boards.
- William Trabilcy, Marlboro Street
January 9, 2026
Will someone please define “vibrancy” for me? Explain why we need more “experiences” in Belmont Center. Vibrancy and experiences are offered as reasons for the proposed zoning overlay. What the town desperately needs is revenue, not experiences.
I walk to Belmont Center three times a week. It always feels full of vitality and activity. The Center hosts Town Day, the Holiday Tree and Menorah Lighting, Midnight Shopping and Holiday Happenings, the Farmers’ Market, Touch-a-Truck, pumpkin painting and Halloween window decorating, the LGBTQ celebration, author talks, and outdoor dining. The Center is beautifully decorated for the December holidays and replete with flowers in warmer months.
Belmont Center is home to 10 food establishments, from pizza to pastry, wine to chocolate, and five restaurants. There are toys, books, jewelry and eyeglasses along with seven clothing stores, two gift stores, two realtors, five banks, and nine hair, nails and fitness salons. Don’t forget the cleaners, law offices, and a newspaper office.
I hear some want more medical office space in Belmont Center. We already have 12 dental practices. There are numerous dental, medical, and wellness practices along Concord Avenue and Trapelo Road. Residents can access the medical office buildings just over the border in Cambridge and Waltham.
The proposed zoning will likely replace the diverse local flavor we treasure about Belmont Center with national chains, but no additional parking. First, malls scooped local shoppers; now online shopping dominates. Yet Belmont Center endures with a special mix of retail and service establishments and community gathering spaces.
I don’t see any tax relief from destroying Belmont Center for intangibles. I do see developers forcing out the local businesses we enjoy. If the overlay passes, I won’t be the empty-nester living in the Center, I’ll be driving to Lexington or Concord for their right-sized centers.
- Anne Marie Mahoney, Goden Street
February 16, 2026
Dear Town Meeting Members and fellow Belmontians
We, concerned Belmont residents, supported by 545 signatories (and growing) of a Change.org petition (link below), ask you to vote NO on March 4 to the Belmont Center Overlay Project. It is risky and destructive. It is based on wrong assumptions, undercounted numbers of school age children, and deliberately minimized traffic and parking impacts. It will endanger our homes, businesses, and lives.
https://www.change.org/p/save-our-towns-soul-no-to-rezoning?source_location=my_petitions_list
Here are 5 key reasons to vote down the Center Overlay Zoning Project:
1. The Size and Scale Is Too Big: 500 new units in one small block!
4- and 5-story buildings in the Center. The human scale of Belmont Center with its New England charm will disappear. What we’ll get: canyon-effect gigantic buildings, like Alewife. No neighboring town is doing anything like this - destroying their Town center, instead of careful, phased, limited development.
This is the Select Board’s own vision of what the development will look like, despite their many attempts to assure us they won’t build in Claflin lot - yet.
2. Developers Get to Size the Buildings and Units, By Right ‼️
Select board suggests developers will build largely studios and affordable one -bedroom condos, which seniors and young adults will get to live in, affordably.
BUT NOTHING in the bylaw requires this. Developers may build lucrative, expensive, residential condos for families, i.e. 2-3 bedroom apartments. When they do, the number of School Age Children overall will shoot up.
3. Financial Impact: Negative! Higher Taxes, Bigger Overrides.
The Select Board sold this entire project as one which will generate revenue.
Their scenario is based on undercounting School Aged Children and understating the real estate value of the 500 planned new condos.
The Town’s fiscal impact analysis of the Center Overlay estimates less than 0.11 School Aged Children (SACs) per unit (based on the wrong assumption most units will be studios and one bedroom apartments with NO kids). Even the Bradford in Cushing Square has more SACs. So do comparable - smaller - developments in neighboring towns like Lexington.
More school aged children mean higher property taxes, more burdens on the schools and teachers, higher municipal costs, and bigger overrides. This project will cost us: a lot.
4. No Parking Exists For The New 1000-2000 Residents Of The 500 New Units Projected, Or For The 1200 New Employees
Traffic in the center will get much worse, a nightmare at rush hour and school pick-up/drop off time.
With traffic jammed, police and fire won’t get to emergencies in time.
And there is NO additional parking for thousands of new people. Where will they park? In every neighborhood we live in - and before long, overnight.
Our homes and neighborhoods could become day & overnight parking lots.
5. Belmont Center’s Small Independent Businesses, Restaurants and Shops Will Be Forced To Shut. They Have Said They Won’t Survive the Construction and High Rents Of This Project.
Imagine No Toy Shop. No Wellington. No Chocolate Dreams. No Butternut. No Bellmont Cafe. No Helena’s. No Westcott Mercantile. No Quebrada Or Patou. No Dental Practices. No Belmont Bookstore.
We are told this project will create “vibrancy” in Belmont Center. What it will do: kill the vibrancy we have now, carefully built over decades.
After a whole year of public requests to do realistic parking and traffic analyses, the Select Board and Planning Board have failed to HEAR AND HEED the concerns of town residents, Center small businesses and abutters.
We propose instead a more careful, phased, NOT-by-right bylaw, to add moderate development to Belmont in a constructive way which WE, the Town, control.
The stakes for all of us are high. The dangers are clear. The benefits are unclear.
Please vote NO on March 4 on the Center Overlay.
Please save our beloved Belmont.
Sincerely,
Dr. Rena Fonseca, Pleasant Street
Linda Nickens, Pleasant StreetFebruary 18, 2026
Dear Town Meeting Members,
First, thank you so much for your hard work and dedication to our town.
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed rezoning that would permit large-scale residential and commercial development in Belmont Center. The proposal to construct 383-500 residential units in this area is not only unrealistic - it is deeply troubling. A project three times the size of The Bradford simply cannot be accommodated in Belmont Center without causing serious and lasting disruption.
The Select Board suggests that adding these units will generate increased revenue and foot traffic. And the Select Board suggests developers will build largely studios and affordable one-bedroom condos, which seniors and young adults will get to live in, affordably. BUT NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS REQUIRES THIS. Developers may build lucrative, expensive residential condos for families, i.e. 2-3 bedroom apartments. When they do, the number of School Age Children overall will shoot up. MORE SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN MEAN HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES, MORE BURDENS ON THE SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS, HIGHER MUNICIPAL COSTS, AND BIGGER OVERRIDES. THIS PROJECT WILL COST US: A LOT.
This rezoning would significantly worsen traffic congestion and exacerbate already severe parking challenges. Traffic through downtown Belmont is already unacceptable Monday through Friday, and this development would only make it worse. The project would introduce an estimated 383-1000 additional vehicles, overwhelming streets that are already strained.
NO PARKING EXISTS FOR THESE POTENTIAL NEW RESIDENTS OR FOR THE NEW EMPLOYEES. And after a year of public requests to do a realistic parking and traffic analyses, the Select Board and Planning Board have failed to HEAR AND HEED the concerns of town residents, Center small businesses, and abutters.
Furthermore, tearing down Center buildings - many of which are over 100 years old - would erode the small-town character that makes Belmont Center such a treasured part of our community. Once that character is lost, it cannot be reclaimed.
Our similarly sized neighboring communities - Lexington, Concord, Winchester, Newton, and Waltham - have exercised proper planning and judgment by not placing developments of this magnitude in the middle of their downtowns. They recognize that such projects are harmful to both residents and local businesses.
To be clear, we are not opposed to development that responsibly strengthens Belmont’s tax base. However, a residential project of this scale requires a location with substantially more available space. More appropriate sites include Belmont Street, Pleasant Street, or Trapelo Road, all of which also provide access to MBTA public transportation.
We also support the idea of a small hotel or Inn in Belmont. Refurbishing the 1934 Colonial Revival Municipal Light Building, for use as a small hotel, could be fantastic. But the most straightforward and equitable revenue solution: requiring the Belmont Country Club to pay its fair share of taxes, rather than continuing to receive a 75% discount. This is, quite simply, low-hanging fruit.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Donna Giuffrida and Carol KressDear Town Meeting Members:
I am writing because I am very concerned about the proposed Belmont Center Overlay plan. It is important that Town Meeting Members hear the views of Belmont residents in order to more accurately represent them, so I am sending this letter to all Town Meeting Members.
I (and many people that I have spoken with) strongly urge you to Vote NO on this current proposal and NO for a large scale hotel.
Perhaps you've just moved here or are life-long residents, like me. Either way, you know that Belmont is a gem. It is a Town, not a city, and I want Belmont to remain as a Town, not the urban area that this proposal could create. When asked why people move here, the answer is typically "for the location, the small town feel and the schools." I've yet to meet anyone who says, "I came here because it's so urban and densely developed!" I truly feel that if such a plan passes, the Town of Belmont that I have known and loved all my life will wither away, slowly morphing into one of the surrounding cities. It is up to you, our representatives, to vote against this proposal and explore other ways to keep our Town Center economically vibrant and inviting, that has minimal impact on existing historic structures and businesses, town character, infrastructure, our floodplain, public safety, and traffic. This large scale zoning is not the answer to Belmont's economic shortfalls and would instead create a new set of negative challenges to the town.
I don't pretend to know all the minute details of the plan, but based on my research, it is definitely NOT in the best interest of the people who reside here. The heights of the allowed buildings are out of proportion to the surrounding area. Developments of this height and density would have a serious impact on the Pleasant Street Historic District - not to mention the destruction it would cause to these historic properties during the construction phase. In addition it would add to existing traffic and congestion that already makes the intersection of Concord Ave. and Leonard St. one of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in Belmont.
This new zoning overlay plan is being proposed for the Belmont Center area with the often heard claim that it will generate money for the town and be good for long-range planning in the Town. In the past we were told that the McLean Project would lower our taxes. It didn't. We were told that the Uplands project would lower our taxes. It didn't. We were told that Cushing Village was going to lower taxes. And it didn’t. Instead these developments have increased our student population, stressed our infrastructure, generated more traffic and increased building density with absolutely no positive economic impact for residents. While each of these plans was profitable to developers, none of them enhanced our small town charm and livability. Instead, once the project is completed, developers leave and, we as a town, have to deal with the aftermath. As a case in point, we mention the loss of the Oliver block in Belmont Center which was replaced with a huge bank and empty parking garage. Cushing Village is another case in point - this new space is mostly vacant due to high rents, and as a result, contributes little to the vibrancy of the square.
Rather than giving Belmont control over its future, this proposal opens the door to over-development that will forever change the small town feel of Belmont Center by encouraging out- of-scale housing and commercial development in an already highly congested area. Is this really the direction we want to take? Why not explore ways to open a bridge again at Clark Street? Why not explore ways to make rents affordable for businesses that want to be in the Center and occupy the current spaces? As a TMM member, have you spoken with the existing businesses in the Center to get their point of view? Have you stood on the small town green in front of M&T bank and looked down Leonard Street imagining what 3-5 stories would look like? Have you considered a hotel in a less congested area, such as the Cambridge Plating site?
I can appreciate all the thought, time and effort that has gone into the plan thus far, but I am begging you, begging you, as a Town Meeting Member to examine your conscience and vote NO on this issue at this time. Please don't be the Town Meeting Member who contributes to the destruction of the character of the Town of Belmont. It is a quality-of-life issue for our residents. Zoning to allow for large scale, out of proportion buildings in Belmont Center is not the answer. If I wanted to live in a densely populated city I'd move there, but I don't. The projected economic benefit is very minimal and not compelling compared to the quality of life issues, and the unintended negative consequences of this development. Please keep the charm and character of the Center as it is - you don't have to build on every square inch.
You really don't.
Thank you for listening and thank you for giving your time to being a Town Meeting Member. As a Town Meeting member representing all residents in Belmont, I would respectfully request a response from you.
- Sandra Curro
September 10, 2025
Belmont will soon experience new development as a result of the MBTA 3A zoning changes, the new by-right Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) legislation, and future development in the Brighton Street area. Change is inevitable and should be welcomed as long as it is realistic, fiscally beneficial, and adequately analyzed.
Belmont Town Meeting members will meet in October to vote on the proposed Belmont Center Overlay Zoning Bylaw. Unfortunately, the process undertaken by town staff and the Select Board concerning this proposal is flawed. My concerns are many, including the following:
The design for our center is an urban design
The projected fiscal benefits are unrealistic
The costs associated with the proposal are understated
The existing businesses are opposed to the changes
The parking analysis is pending
There is no traffic analysis
Revisions continue even at this late date
I urge Town Meeting members to attend the Public Listening Session on Sept. 11 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Auditorium. We need to be heard and to see exactly what the new building structures will look like next to the existing structures. The proposed changes will forever change Belmont. Unfortunately, the return will leave us with minimal benefits.
- Margaret (Peg) Callanan, Sargent Road
February 2026
My Dad was one of the smartest, wisest persons I have known. Son of Polish immigrants, he served in the Navy in World War II, earned two degrees from the University of Michigan on the GI Bill, and retired from a career with Raytheon as a division manager. He was a scientist, an inventor, a bike rider into his 80s, a swell dancer and very humorous. Until his death at 91 he freely shared wisdom about physics, politics and how the world works. As a teenager I didn’t appreciate his lengthy explanations of things but by my mid-twenties, I understood the depth of his experience and appreciated his willingness to share it without judgement.
Why do I mention my father? Lately I’ve been hearing that those of us with long experience in Town government are out of touch. Our commitment is labelled “obstructionist” and “unpersuadable.” Our opinions dismissed as resistant to change, stranded in the past, promoting a “death spiral.” Our offers to share perspective and hard-earned wisdom are rebuffed.
What a shame that our collective years on the Select Board, School Committee, Warrant Committee, Planning Board, Capital Budget, Community Preservation, building committees, and Town Meeting cannot be recognized as valuable knowledge. We know how things work and how we got here. Maybe we’ve even “been there, done that” and can stop others from falling into the same dangerous traps. We are part of the future, too. We love our homes, our neighborhoods and our town. We are energetic and involved. We do not wish to be relegated to studio apartments over a store front, without a car, in a noisy Belmont Center filled with wine bars.
Therefore, please listen to us when we tell you that the present Belmont Center overlay is not good for the Town’s future. It is a development plan that will produce little to no net revenue. It will not prevent overrides or pay our teachers. It will further clog our streets and drive out existing merchants. It will not create vibrancy, experiences, or small apartments that draw young professionals with no cars. It will push employee and residential parking into the Winn Brook neighborhood. It will add students to a cash-strapped school system. It will demand new, expensive infrastructure. It will not save businesses from high rents. Landlords set high rents, not the Town.
It is so easy to dismiss us and our accomplishments with pejorative labels to sell one’s agenda. It is more difficult to listen, learn, and avoid costly mistakes. We want to help others achieve good things for Belmont. We appreciate those who invite us to help. Like my Dad, we have valuable wisdom to share.- Anne Marie Mahoney, Goden Street
January 4, 2025
Many, if not most, Belmont residents and business owners know that the town is determined to enact a major zoning change that would alter Belmont Center completely.
The effort has been spearheaded by Belmont’s Select Board with the acquiescence of the Planning Board.
Traditionally, the Planning Board has been independent and has operated free of instructions and/or suggestions from the Select Board and other town officials; its scope makes it one of Belmont’s most powerful committees. However, the current Planning
Board is not following this tradition but rather, has been acquiescent to the Select Board’s wishes and appears to be influenced by the current Town Planner to an extent that can charitably be described as extremely unusual. (The Town Planner reports to
the Town Administrator herself technically subordinate to the Select Board.)
What is a significant change in the way the Planning Board operates seems to have been prompted by the desire of both the previous and the current Select Board to bring more business into Belmont in the belief that this will reduce the burden of Belmont’s
high property taxes on its residents. In fact, all three members of the current Board emphasized and/or promised significant commercial development during their campaigns.
A number of the political aspects involved in this endeavor have been discussed in:
IF I MAY: Belmont Center/Concord Avenue Rezoning - The Politics and You, August, 30, 2025
https://jfeinleibifimay.com/?p=1333
and
IF I MAY: Keeping Belmont’s Democracy Alive, September 21, 2025
https://jfeinleibifimay.com/?p=1336
The blogs delineate some of the problems the town has encountered as it has attempted to promote these zoning changes. Some of these issues have arisen because of resident and business owner opposition to the basic parameters of the proposed legislation as well as because the current Select Board appears determined to obtain approval for this legislation as quickly as possible.
The Current Proposal: The Belmont Center Overlay & The Center Gateway Overlay District
The requirements for the Belmont Center Overlay are remarkably similar to the requirements contained in Belmont’s rendering of 3A, the state law that requires many Massachusetts municipalities to allow more multiple family dwellings and commercial
development by right. In other words, if successful, Belmont Center would have zoning similar in many ways to what it would have had had it ended up as the 3A designee rather than Waverley. It should be noted that while by right development would be
dominant, developers would be required to adhere to design guidelines, thus giving the town a modicum of control over projects.
In addition, the town’s executive has proposed a separate commercial district - The Center Gateway Overlay District - on Concord Avenue in the area currently occupied by the US post office and extending down to the underpass. Among other things, it has
been posited that a 155-room hotel is appropriate for the area and that it would be a money-maker.
Will These Zoning Changes Actually Be Good For The Town?
On its face, the justification provided by the Select Board and adopted by the Planning Board seems to make sense. After all, Belmont does have money problems. Changes that would have a positive effect on Belmont’s finances would be welcomed by most, if not all, of Belmont’s residents. Nevertheless, there are a number of concerns about the overall approach as well as the underlying rationale that suggest this zoning proposal needs more work.
The Overlay project began as a single unit. In other words, changes to Belmont Center itself as well as to Concord Avenue were considered together and presented to the public. Passing the single article would have required a 2/3 vote by Town Meeting. Because the original proposal ran into far more resistance than usually arises when zoning changes are proposed, resulting in serious questions about whether it could pass, it was split into two portions ― the Belmont Center Overlay and the Center Gateway Overlay District as described above.
The Belmont Center Overlay, the most contentious of the proposals, can now be passed fairly easily because only a majority vote is required. The Center Gateway Overlay District must have a 2/3 vote to be adopted. Dividing the project into two parts allows for it to be considered fairly quickly (as zoning proposals go) at a Special Town Meeting scheduled for March 4, 2026. As of this writing, preliminary versions of both Overlay articles are available. It is unclear when the final versions will actually be ready.
However, even if the final versions were available now, the time available for study and comprehension of this complex Overlay legislation by Town Meeting Members as well as the general population (including business owners) is grossly inadequate. This is the case despite the fact that independent technical analysis of both Overlays is being done by Doug Koplow head of the Cushing Square Neighborhood Association (CSNA) and a Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member.
Should Belmont Be Considering This At This Point?
There is no question that if adopted, the new zoning would result in many more apartments and a huge increase in the school population, something that would necessarily be expensive for the town. The proposed hotel might or might not bring in sufficient income to offset the costs caused by increased traffic, deal with the resulting urban congestion, handle the need for increased town services and cope with increases in the school budget. While the town has sponsored studies in order to obtain information on many of these issues, they have been rushed and in some instances are exceedingly narrow.
Both the Planning Board and the consultants they have used have done considerable work, but thus far, they have not provided sufficient information for citizens and Town Meeting Members to be able to make a definitive, responsible assessment with respect
to whether or not this will be good for the town. Moreover, there is neither the time nor the budget available for Belmont to do the in-depth studies that are essential before that responsible decision can be made.
Because the Select Board has power, it is in a position to opt for projects that can change the nature of our town without us - the citizens - considering them first.
Maybe these changes to Belmont Center’s zoning are OK and maybe they aren’t. But at this point, we don’t know.
Zoning And What We Want Our Town To Be
We - Belmont’s citizens not the Select Board and the powers-that-be - haven’t stepped back and had a discussion about what we want our town to be and what we have to do to support that vision in hard dollars. Rather, we have a solution that is being imposed on us without that essential serious conversation having occurred. And we are being told that if we don’t go along with this now, Massachusetts law requires us to wait for two years before we can reconsider it at a Town Meeting. Two years, it is implied, could be a catastrophe for Belmont.
In fact, two years in terms of public policy is trivial. Why? Because public policy affects so much and so many people that if it is to be done correctly, it takes time. Many of us, myself included, do not have loads of money and could do with some relief. But in all but a few cases, a few years will be tough but they won’t be critical.
Let’s take the time to figure out what it is that we want. And let’s make sure that we get to do this by voting down the two Overlay proposals that will come before Town Meeting on March 4th.
How Can You Make This Happen?
Call or email your Town Meeting Members. It may sound cheesy, but it actually works. How do you find out how to reach them? Go to: https://www.belmont-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1964/Town-Meeting-Members---October-6-2025-PDF?bidI
Don’t forget that it’s your Town Meeting Members - not the Select Board - who have the ability to make sure the Town Meeting does not make a critical decision before it should.
- Judith Feinleib