Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Planning And Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council backs comprehensive master plan and visioning for Stow property, asks staff to scope consultant procurement

Belmont City Council · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council members endorsed pursuing a comprehensive master plan (option three) for the Stow property — including public engagement, feasibility analysis and conceptual alternatives — and asked staff to return with an RFP/RFQ timeline, stakeholder list and a proposed schedule.

Belmont City Council directed staff to pursue a comprehensive master plan and visioning process for the city‑owned Stow property, emphasizing public engagement, feasibility analysis and producing an actionable plan for potential development or public uses.

Staff presented three options for the property: limited action, standalone visioning, or a full master plan incorporating the visioning work. Several council members advocated for option three, arguing the city should hire outside consultants to conduct stakeholder interviews, market analysis, conceptual designs and infrastructure assessments. Councilors stressed the need to coordinate this effort with the city’s center‑city small area plan to avoid duplicative outreach and to ensure the product is implementable for developer solicitation or public projects.

Council asked staff to return at a July workshop with a proposed procurement approach, a prioritized stakeholder list (including nearby property owners and business groups), a realistic timeline for key milestones and a recommended consultant scope. Staff said the work could be completed in about a year given appropriate consultant capacity and that it should be structured to produce feasible, prioritized options the city could act on. No final contract or funding appropriation was approved at the meeting; council’s direction was to proceed with scoping and procurement work and report back.