By Vincent Stanton, Jr. and Michael Widmer
The Select Board (SB) discussed the Belmont Center rezoning articles at its January 26, 2026 meeting (link to video; discussion starts at 2:42:15), and again on February 9 (link to video; discussion starts at 1:58:30). Select Board members rebutted many widely expressed public criticisms. (Of course the three SB members have distinct views about the rezoning, and many of the views summarized below were expressed by only one or two SB members, but they are largely in agreement about the big questions.)
What follows is author Stanton’s interpretation of SB members’ statements on January 26, February 9, and at other recent public forums, in favor of the rezoning articles, interspersed with author Widmer’s perspective on the SB’s arguments. See Michael Widmer and Ira Morgenstern’s article “Overlay May Not Produce New Revenues” in the print version of the newsletter for the financial analysis referenced below.
.
- Critique: the projected net financial benefit to the town is less than originally promised.
SB Reply: The scale of the rezoning project has been significantly reduced (both the area being rezoned, and the allowed building scale) in response to public feedback. The reduction in the projected financial return is a consequence.
Despite that, in the Office of Planning & Building’s final financial model (January 2026), all scenarios (minimal, moderate, or maximal buildout) are net revenue generators of at least $300,000 per year. Further, the financial models don’t account for all of the benefits, which would include job creation (starting with construction), more customers for Belmont Center businesses, and more diverse shopping experiences for Belmont residents.
Michael Widmer comment: An independent analysis (summarized in the print edition of the March 2026 newsletter) has concluded that the town may actually lose money, principally because the costs of additional schoolchildren will exceed the new tax revenues. Even the Warrant Committee’s most optimistic outcome is only half of one percent of the town’s current budget. Further, none of the estimates include the costs of likely utility upgrades for water, sewer, and electricity.
- Critique: the town’s financial models undercount likely school children and are therefore too optimistic.
SB Reply: A 2017 study (updated in 2024) by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), a Boston-based regional planning organization, found no meaningful correlation between new housing development and increased public school enrollment in a study of 234 school districts in Massachusetts. Indeed, areas with high housing production often experienced flat or declining enrollment.
The absence of any correlation matches Belmont’s experience from 2010–2018, when the student population surged by about 100 students per year (~2.5%) despite negligible growth in housing; the 299-unit Royal Belmont didn’t open until 2017.
M.W. comment: The town’s estimate of one schoolchild in every 10 new apartments is almost certainly an undercount given the enormous appeal of Belmont’s schools. The independent analysis that drew on real data from neighboring communities concluded that there would be 118 schoolchildren in the approximately 400 new apartments, which would create a financial deficit for the town.
- Critique: Town Meeting doesn’t have enough information or hasn’t had time to digest all of the available (and constantly changing) information about this vast project.
SB reply: The thinking behind the proposed rezoning dates from a 2005–2008 study (“A Planning Vision for Belmont Center”) by a Select Board-appointed committee. The current plan has been intensively developed over the past 14 months by the Planning Board and the Office of Planning and Building, starting with a January 2025 charrette followed by 25 sessions of public hearings from February through November, including an open house, several listening sessions, and joint meetings with other committees. The voices of rezoning opponents—including abutters, business owners, financial skeptics and others— have been heard, and have influenced the area and scale of the proposed rezoning.
M.W. comment: The reality is that many, many Town Meeting members do not have a clear grasp of the enormous complexities of the proposal. The Select Board chair recently declined to participate in a public forum where the issues would be publicly debated.
- Critique: Belmont Center is a gem of high-quality retail establishments, which the proposed rezoning threatens to undermine by disrupting parking and traffic flows, and ultimately by forcing up rents to levels that small business owners cannot afford.
SB reply: No change in zoning may not be a recipe for the status quo, as small retailers are under relentless pressure from Amazon and big-box stores. Indeed, with some buildings vacant for three to five years, there is ample evidence that the center is not thriving as it once did. Any new buildout is likely to take place over many years, lessening the disruption, which nonetheless has to be managed.
M.W. comment: The scale of the proposed development would almost certainly force the closure of virtually all small businesses in the center. And if there are vacant stores in the center today, how would we attract two floors of more expensive commercial space under the overlay proposal?
- Critique: The increased density in Belmont Center will make traffic impossible.
SB reply: In the era of Google Maps and WAZE, traffic is more dynamic than in the past; it will find its level. If cut-through traffic from Route 2 experiences longer delays in Belmont Center, then more cars will exit at Alewife or elsewhere.
M.W. comment: Simply put, the overlay proposal ignores the enormous parking and traffic problems created by hundreds of new apartments and 1,200 new employees.
Finally, Select Board members stated that the proposed rezoning of Belmont Center is not, and never has been, the “solution” to Belmont’s fiscal woes, but rather one of a set of measures that afford the town more opportunities for economic development. Following hoped-for success in March, the next steps would be to create an overlay district for Brighton Street, and after that the Trapelo Road corridor.
If the proposed Belmont Center rezoning fails, that would send a signal to town leaders—and possibly to developers who are watching this drama—that perhaps those other measures lack the support of town residents, and they would be delayed if not derailed.
M.W. comment: The issue is the scale of the proposed development in Belmont Center. The town can certainly move forward on a more modest proposal for the center which would attract broad community support.
Vincent Stanton, Jr., is a director of the Belmont Citizens Forum and a Precinct 3 Town Meeting member. Michael Widmer is a Precinct 5 Town Meeting member, former Moderator and former chair of the Warrant Committee.
Links:
January 26, 2026, Select Board meeting (Belmont Center zoning discussion starts at 2:40:30): https://belmontmedia.org/watch/select-board-town-belmont
February 9, 2026, Select Board meeting (Belmont Center zoning discussion starts at 1:58:30):
https://www.belmontmedia.org/watch/select-board-020926
2017 Metropolitan Area Planning Council study on housing and school population: “The Waning Influence Of Housing Production On Public School Enrollment”
https://www.mapc.org/learn/research-analysis/enrollment-2017/
2024 update to 2017 MAPC study: “An Update on Housing Production’s Effect on Public School Enrollment”
https://www.mapc.org/learn/research-analysis/enrollment/
2008 study “A Planning Vision for Belmont Center” prepared by the Select Board-appointed Belmont Center Planning Group:
Planning Board Agendas – 2025
https://www.belmont-ma.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-3
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.