Belmont planning panel backs Charles Armstrong School expansion but is split over planned gym

The Belmont Planning Commission on Jan. 6 voted to recommend that the City Council approve a conceptual development plan for Charles Armstrong School’s proposed campus expansion, while stopping short of a full, unanimous recommendation on detailed approvals for the school’s proposed athletic building.

The commission’s action clears a path for the school to seek council approval of a plan that would add a new academic wing and, in a later phase, an athletics building and associated site work at 1405 Solana Drive. The body voted 6–0 to recommend the conceptual development plan after several hours of presentations, commissioner questions and public comment.

“Charles Armstrong School unlocks the unique potential of students with dyslexia and related learning differences,” Neil Tuck, the school’s head of school, told the commission during the applicant presentation. He described a phased plan that would add classrooms, specialty labs and space for up to 290 students and up to 85 staff, with the school proposing to build the academic wing first and the athletic building later.

Why it mattered: Neighbors who live near the McDougall campus acknowledged the school’s educational mission but urged caution about the athletic building’s proximity to backyards, the removal of protected trees and traffic on narrow neighborhood streets. “We’re going to be looking at a 22‑foot wall at our backyard fence,” neighbor Jeff Criswell said, citing the elevation of the kitchen/parapet area closest to adjacent homes.

What was proposed: Staff described phase 1 as roughly a 11,900‑square‑foot academic wing and phase 2 as an approximately 11,100‑square‑foot athletics building with ancillary support spaces. The project would remove 39 protected trees but staff said the proposal includes at least a 1:1 replacement ratio and a proposed planting of 44 replacement trees. The school also requested modest operational changes — an enrollment cap increase from 260 to 290 students, expanded weekday hours and limited weekend access tied to a small number of events.

Concerns and responses: Commissioners pressed the applicant on traffic mitigation, emergency access, the tree plan and environmental review. The applicant described an existing, practiced two‑loop drop‑off system and said six to seven staff regularly manage arrival and dismissal to reduce curbside parking and hold times. Parks and Recreation staff explained existing joint‑use arrangements for McDougall Park and said the city coordinates field scheduling with local schools.

Several residents warned of safety hazards and nuisance impacts if the athletic building is sited where shown on the plans. “This project poses clear and significant risks to public safety, neighborhood livability and the integrity of Belmont’s zoning standards,” said Richard Konigsberg, a neighborhood resident. Supporters — including former students, parents and local educators — urged approval, saying the expansion would improve services for children with learning differences.

Commission action and next steps: The commission considered motions to remove (or “sever”) the phase‑2 athletics component from the approvals so it could be revisited. Those motions failed to secure a majority. The commission ultimately approved the conceptual development plan recommendation to council but split over the detailed development plan and conditional use permit for the athletic building; the record will show commissioners were broadly supportive of the phase‑1 academic components but divided on the phase‑2 massing, setbacks and screening. The City Council will take up the proposal and the recommendations from the Planning Commission at a future meeting.

Formal outcomes recorded from the hearing included a 6–0 recommendation to forward the conceptual development plan to council and a separate record of split votes and failed amendments concerning the detailed development plan and conditional use permit for the athletics building. The commission also approved the consent minutes earlier in the meeting.

What to watch: The proposal will be scheduled for City Council review. Council members will receive the commission’s recommendation, the full project record and the dozens of written and spoken public comments submitted during the hearing. If Council approves the entitlements, phase‑1 construction could begin as early as 2026; the applicant has identified 2031–2032 as a potential window for phase‑2 construction but emphasized the school could adjust phasing.