Mt. Gilboa neighbors, Concom say no to Mugar-defense article

The Mt. Gilboa neighborhood has risen as nearly one voice to protect itself against what residents see as a misguided warrant article headed to Town Meeting in late April.

1 Mt. Gilboa is indeed occupied. / Jeff Boudreau photo

In their corner is the Conservation Commission, which opposed the article March 3. Next up is the Board of Selectmen, expected to hold a hearing on Article 30 March 21.

What at stake? As usual, it depends who you speak to. As usual, it helps to hear from a number of voices.

The citizen article’s proponent, John Belskis, Precinct 18 Town Meeting member, seeks to transfer the large town-owned home at 1 Gilboa Road to the Arlington Housing Authority. The article would also remove that house from protection provided by Mass. General Law’s Article 97 and seeks a conservation restriction “protecting an equivalent” area of Arlington’s Great Meadows, in Lexington.

YourArlington reported in February Belskis’s rationale for the article, aiming for another way to block the Mugar project. Read his comments abiut that in the shaded box at right.

ART. 30 AIM
Article 97 (XCVII) of the state Constitution is a protection that may be placed to protect, preserve and enhance all open space.
This protection was placed to preserve the open space on Mt. Gilboa when it was deeded as such by a previous land trust. It may be removed with legislation providing an equivalent area at another location.
By placing this property and its included housing under the Arlington Housing Authority and deed restricting it as affordable housing in perpetuity the property may then be included in the 1.5-percent safe-harbor calculation of Mass. General Laws, Chapter 40B, which should then give Arlington an affordable land-area calculation of 2.2 percent.
Will this allow Arlington to dictate the terms it desires in any proposed 40B project (including the proposed Mugar project)?
Perhaps, but it must first be passed by Town Meeting and then placed in a bill before the Legislature to move the Article 97 restriction to the equivalent area.

For those who oppose the 40B Mugar housing project in East Arlington, the desire to improve town defenses against it a laudable goal. But, on the whole, neighborhood residents and at least one official body, the Conservation Commission, do not think the trade-offs in this case are worth it.

Consider those who have spoken out, before the warrant was made public, on Feb. 24, and after.

Conversation began Feb. 11

Thirteen days earlier, David White, a member of the Concom and well known for leading nature walks through Great Meadows, wrote to selectmen of the proposed land transfer:

“Arlington has very little conservation land (about 30 acres total), and the Mt. Gilboa area is one of the largest and most attractive spots. Increasing the housing impact in the very center of it will be very detrimental to human enjoyment of this natural area and affect its wildlife habitat value as well.

“This seems like a very short-sighted attempt to address a perceived problem by sacrificing a very valuable resource. If one wanted to increase the affordable housing area in Arlington there are a number of other parcels (such as the Crusher lot) that would be more suitable — although I am not suggesting that. Only that this warrant is the wrong solution to a potential problem.”

A neighbor Feb. 18

One week later, in a letter to selectmen, Roy Goldstein of 91 Westminster Ave. wrote:

“Upon learning about a proposed warrant article to alter the status of the Mt. Gilboa Conservation parcel, I was in disbelief. Especially after myself and many others fought so hard in 1989 to preserve it as it is today.

“This is not just about aesthetics and a desire to keep the neighborhood’s character as we know it.

“Having studied and appreciated this site for 36 years now, I can say with personal experience that the richness of its contribution to the ecological system is monumental. Unfortunately, although the numbers of species that I have logged over the years are impressive, I have indeed seen some noticeable changes that indicate negative trends. To me this reinforces the importance of it as open space.

“It is not just a parcel that offers an island of preservation, but is a critical link to the conservation/green corridor created eastward to Whipple Hill, Turkey Hill, the Middlesex Fells and beyond and westward by the Arlington Reservoir, Great Meadows and Mystic Valley Watershed, and on to the Western Greenway of Belmont and Waltham ….

“Having sat through many town-related meetings, where it was lamented that the inventory of open space in Arlington was low, I find it shocking that there might be any consideration of altering Mt. Gilboa.

Historic value cited

“Additionally, I’d like point out, as was done during the discussions in the original fight for preservation, that this site holds significant historic value. Not only as being the focus of the Mt. Gilboa Neighborhood, it’s Historic District and the Crescent Hill Club of the 1800s but, when we speak of the bloodiest battle at the start of the Revolutionary War, we speak of, and have commemorated, ‘The Foot of the Rocks’ marking the site with its plaque and strip park. These ‘rocks’ are indeed the escarpments of Mt. Gilboa.

“Here again as a town, we lament the loss of historic structures and reminders of our past and have been trying to find ways to shine a light on ourselves much as Lexington has done. Mt. Gilboa is a part of that fabric ….

“I am sensitive to the need for affordable housing but hope that we can find a different way to create opportunities elsewhere. Once altered or lost, it will be gone forever.”

Home’s occupant alerts list

Gilboa neighborhood activity ramped up after Pam Hallett engaged the neighborhood email list. The Precinct 21 Town Meeting member is director of the Housing Corporation of Arlington, a nonprofit that works to increase affordable housing in town, including at nearby 20 Westminster.

Hallett is also the tenant of the town-owned 1 Gilboa, the property in question. Contrary to the first sentence of the March 10 Advocate report about Article 30, 1 Gilboa is indeed occupied.

Susan Doctrow of 99 Westminster Ave., a Precinct 21 Town Meeting member, added her “great concern” in a letter to selectmen:

Referring to the aim “to provide additional assurance that Arlington will reach the 1.5% land area enabling exemption from Chapter 40b,” Doctrow expressed strong objection.

“My husband John and I have lived in the Mt. Gilboa neighborhood since 2003. Some of our neighbors, including Cheryl, Walter and Roy, have lived here much longer and were involved in the original efforts leading to protection of this natural resource by the Town. Another neighbor, Beth, wrote to us — during our neighborhood email list discussion of this Article last week — about her happy childhood memories exploring those woods.

Suzanne McLeod at Gilboa kiosk that Scouts built and she reshaped. / Marjorie Howard photo

“Others, Chris, Libby, Jennifer — representing three different households — wrote of the great importance of the conservation land in their very recent decisions to move here. One Mt. Gilboa neighborhood resident, Suzanne [McLeod], is featured in the recently published book Legendary Locals of Arlington for the poetry board she established on the nice kiosk built on the site by Boy Scout volunteers.

Defines neighborhood

“To say that this land has helped to define the character of our neighborhood is not an exaggeration. Enabling housing construction, or otherwise removing conservation protections, on any part of this beautiful and treasured wooded land would cause a terrible loss.

“To be very clear, this is not an objection, in any way, to affordable housing ….

“However, sacrificing our conservation land is a completely different matter. The Article’s further proposal — that land in Arlington Great Meadows be placed under conservation restriction to make up for this loss in Mt. Gilboa — is not an acceptable alternative, even if were a technically legal remedy.”

From the Gilboa list, the issue leaped to the larger Arlington List on Feb. 26, as sometimes heated exchanges continued the next two days.

NIMBY?

On Feb. 27, Belskis, the article proponent, appeared to strike a nerve, writing to Doctrow:

“While I appreciate your comments and expressed concerns, I can’t help but feel that I am looking at a classic NIMBY attitude.

“Essentially this Warrant Article if approved may very well protect other areas of our town from unwarranted and overly dense development. There is much more environmentally challenged land in East Arlington yet you appear to be willing to forego an opportunity to protect those wetlands and your fellow citizens in that end of town.

“1 Gilboa road is a R1 zoned parcel and is carried as Municipal owned. It is not designated as parkland or conservation restricted property. Yes, it has been cited as having a Chapter 97 restriction, which for simplicity of the transfer, Town Counsel opined that a Legislative Chapter 97 transfer of an equivalent sized parcel would facilitate the deed filing designating it as affordable property in perpetuity. I was quite surprised to hear that the Lexington parcel has never been accorded Chapter 97 protection.

“As a Town there are many protective by-laws that would ensure that nothing other than what is there today could be changed. But I offer a worse case scenario to this site.

View of Arlington through Mt. Gilboa woods. / Jeff Boudreau photo

ARTICLE 30 TRANSFER OF TOWN PROPERTY/1 GILBOA ROAD
To see if the Town will vote to transfer the ownership and care and custody of the land and structures located at 1 Gilboa Road, currently owned by the Town of Arlington, to the Arlington
Housing Authority for the perpetual use of the same for affordable housing purposes and compliant with all terms and conditions such that the affordable housing developed and occupied thereon meets the Commonwealth’s requirements for inclusion in the Town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory, AND FURTHER,
to authorize the Board of Selectmen and any other municipal entity required by law, to seek the approval of the General Court, all as required by Article 97 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to remove said 1 Gilboa Road from the protections of Article 97 and, as permitted by Article 97, authorize the placement of a Conservation Restriction or other instrument protecting an equivalent or greater land area for conservation purposes identified as a portion or total of the Arlington’s “Great Meadow” and located Lexington, Massachusetts, or other sufficient land area identified by the Town;
AND FURTHER, to authorize the Board of Selectmen to take whatever steps are necessary to accomplish and fulfill the goals of this Article; or take any action related thereto.
(Inserted at the request of John Belskis and 10 registered voters)

There is nothing that says in a budget crunch that the Town could opt to place the property on the open market and a developer exercising a 40B option could without compromising the Chapter 97 and not removing any open land, build a multi story high rise. By attaining safe harbor status by adding this property to the 1.5% calculation it would preclude such an occurrence.

“As with all too many situations, the devil is in the details. I have placed this Warrant as a solution to the shadow of MGL c40B over our wonderful town and as we continue through the democratic process of Board and Committee hearings and eventually Town Meeting, I will respond to any concerns and opinions as we go forward.”

Welcomes affordable housing

Doctrow responded the same day:

“With due respect, there is nothing ‘NIMBY’ in my attitude. As both my letters explain, I welcome the two other affordable housing projects within walking distance of my house. In addition, I propose a third one, also within walking distance to my house.

“Please don’t distort my motivations, since I have tried very hard not to distort yours. Again, I do not believe that the goal of protecting the town (or, actually, super-protecting the town, since we have reportedly already reached 1.5%) from Chapter 40b is worth putting conservation land at risk. I can assure you that I would feel the same way even if the conservation land in question were not in my backyard.

“In order to prevent your worst-case scenario from happening at 1 Gilboa, perhaps it is time we put all of Mt. Gilboa under conservation protection. That is a ‘safe harbor’ I would gladly work for and support!”

As to the legal issues involved, Doctrow asked Town Counsel Douglas Heim about them, and he responded March 1:

“You are welcome to share my comments as you like. I have relayed to Mr. Belskis my opinion about Article 97 protection, so it should not be a surprise to anyone at the Conservation Commission’s hearing.

“That said, I also want to be clear that while I’ve not vetted Mr. Belskis calculations, the approximately 1.7-acre parcel he is proposing be dedicated to affordable housing would make a significant beneficial impact from the perspective of the 1.5-percent calculation for Arlington.

“It may not be strictly necessary (we are just above 1.5 percent at present) or the best option to bolster that calculation to make sure that a more conservative reading or a change in land use would not divest us of the rights we believe we should have relative to 40B developments – I leave that to folks like yourself, the Commission and others to discuss.”

Conservation Commission March 3

The Conservation Commission heard Article 30 on Thursday, March 3. About 20 people attended, including many from the Gilboa neighborhood and others.

Neighbor Jennifer Brown and Doctrow provided some impressions. They believed no guests attending supported the article, except for Belskis.

They called the hearing “very fair,” with constructive exchanges. Belskis “gave a very detailed description of the background for the Article (primarily Arlington’s history with Chapter 40B and his admirable work against it, including advocating for changes in the law). He explained why he felt many of the objections he’s heard were not necessarily true.”

Commissioners asked him many questions for clarification. One interesting point was that he said he did not confer with any town entity about this, including the Arlington Housing Authority, to whom the land would be transferred under Article 30.

Members of the audience spoke, with differing concerns.

Speakers included Brian Rehrig, a Town Meeting member who lives near Town Hall and has long led efforts against the Mugar development. He explained why he thinks Article 30 is a poor solution.

The state’s burdensome requirements to remove Article 97 would probably prevent it from happening, Rehrig said.

Ann LeRoyer, chairman of the Open Space Committee, and a Town Meeting member from Precinct 17, spoke against the article and why Article 30 is at odds with the town’s Open Space Plan.

Several commissioners expressed their own concerns. Commissioner Susan Chapnick said that, even if development happened on only the house lot, it seemed impossible that it would not affect the rest of the land.

Unanimously opposing

The commission voted unanimously on a motion, presented by Commissioner White, opposing the article.

Another commissioner stressed that this was a vote on their recommendation to Town Meeting. If Town Meeting were still to vote two-thirds in favor of this land transfer, the issue would have to return to the commission for the Article 97 transfer, and it would have to approve it unanimously for it to go forward. That is unlikely to occur.

Nathanial Stevens, Concom chair, provided his March 6 letter to selectmen reporting the commission action. It says, in part:

“The Conservation Commission opposes Article 30 regarding the transfer of Mt. Gilboa property to the Arlington Housing Authority.

“It is our responsibility to protect conservation land, and this proposal is very detrimental to that purpose.

“Arlington has very little conservation land – about 30 acres total. The Mt. Gilboa conservation area at 10.7 acres is the largest and most attractive of those parcels. To transfer roughly 1.7 acres from the center and top of this would both reduce valuable conservation land and have a very negative impact on the remaining area.

“Also once the land is transferred, Article 97 protections will be lost and there is nothing to prevent future development of that site whatever current intentions might be.

“The transfer also goes against the long range plan of the Conservation Commission to improve public access at the top of the hill with an accessible vista park.

“We are supportive of affordable housing in appropriate locations, but Mt. Gilboa is not such a place.”

Belskis is asked to summarize

Asked to summarize his defense before the Concom, Belskis wrote March 15:

“I’m not sure the word ‘defense’ applies to my Warrant Article 30. I went to the Con. Comm. to present my views and motives for initiating the article. I had every reason to believe that there was sound reasoning behind the article. [In addition,] all the town documents I had researched before filing it indicated that there was no Chapter 97 involvement.

“Town counsel apprised me of the Chapter 97 possibilities, and as an alternative suggested the inclusion of a procedure to facilitate the transfer in the event it became an issue ….

“I bring detail and explanation regarding Warrant Article 30; it does not warrant a defense.”

On to the Board of Selectmen hearing and then Town Meeting — the citizen body that will decide this citizen article brought by a long-respected 40B opponent.

Meaning of Mt. Gilboa 

Mount Gilboa, sometimes called the Mountains of Gelboe, is a mountain range overlooking the Jezreel Valley in northern Israel. The meaning of the name Gilboa is boiling springs; bubbling fountains; agitated pools; water bursting from the rock, which makes it similar to the Arabic name “Jebel Faqqua” (“jebel” means mountain, “faqqa” means burst, split).[1]

In the Bible, King Saul, Israel’s first King, led a charge against the Philistines at Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 28:4). The battle ends with the king falling on his own sword and Saul’s sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Melchishua being killed in battle (1 Samuel 31:1-4). David, who hears about the tragedy after the battle, curses the mountain: “Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew nor rain upon you, neither fields of choice fruits; for there the shield of the mighty was vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil” (2 Samuel 1:21).

Dec. 23, 2015: Zoning board readies one of its Mugar project defenses

Dec. 9, 2015: MassHousing approves Mugar 40B application

Nov. 24, 2015: Mugar developer submits document, and town awaits 40B decision

Oct. 7, 2015: Selectmen respond to MassHousing; agency expected decision soon

Sept. 25, 2015: Mugar developer submits 8 project documents after August deadline

Aug. 19, 2015: Selectmen’s comments on Mugar project sent to MassHousing

Aug. 13, 2015: Details few as Mugar site developer looks ahead

July 15, 2015: Hearing on Mugar site appliocation tough to schedule 
June 29, 2105: July 22 meeting set as developer moves toward 40B Mugar application

June 9: Step toward 40B filed for Mugar site; town seeks more time to respond

May 26, 2015: Speakers at Hardy send a clear message about Mugar site: NO
Cambridge Day, April 26: 3-year Cambridge master-plan process to start with Alewife

April 5, 2015: Coalition responds point by point to Mugar developer’s statements

Opinion: Arlington’s Belskis on 40B

March 31, 2015: Coalition seeks to preserve Mugar site from development         

Coalition to Save Mugar Wetlands: WordPress | Facebook

March 8, 2015: Belmont Uplands permit issued; opponents vow to continue

This fact-based commentary was published Wednesday, March 16, 2016.