Another snag for Alewife project

O’Neill Properties Group recently applied for permission from Belmont officials to begin work on its long-delayed, 300-unit apartment complex, which is proposed for a parcel surrounded by the 120-acre Alewife Brook Reservation on the Belmont-Cambridge line.

But Glenn Clancy, Belmont’s director of community development and building commissioner, said he would like to see more detailed plans and studies on certain aspects of the proposal before granting a building permit.

The request has already pushed the review period past the typical 30-day waiting period, and will probably take weeks more, though the final timeline will depend on how quickly the developer comes through with the additional information, Clancy said.

While he acknowledges the requests are unusual, the $70 million project, which has been the subject of intense opposition from neighbors and environmental activists, is far from typical, Clancy said. “Do most building permit applicants come in and get out of here within 30 days? Yes. Is this the standard permit application we usually get? No,’’ he said in an interview last week.

“It has been one of the more challenging projects I have been involved with.’’

The review by the town’s building chief comes as opponents of the Belmont Uplands project discuss seeking a court injunction if the town approves the developer’s permit.

The opponents, who are battling in court to preserve the wooded site as it now stands, say their case would become moot if O’Neill is granted permission to level the trees and other vegetation covering the parcel.

If town officials grant a building permit to O’Neill, said Thomas Bracken, a lawyer representing the Friends of the Alewife Reservation, opponents may respond by seeking an injunction to bar any work on the project until their ongoing court challenge is decided.

Opponents have rallied around a couple of issues, including the preservation of an unusual stand of trees that they have dubbed Alewife’s “silver maple forest.’’ Neighbors have also argued that work on the site could increase flooding in adjacent residential areas in Belmont.

“The whole point of the injunction is to preserve the status quo,’’ Bracken said. “If a building permit is issued and it appears the developer is going to proceed and bulldoze down the trees and fill in the wetlands, this would all happen before we get a decision from the court.’’

But any building permit is likely to be weeks away, with Belmont’s building commissioner poring over the details of the project.

Clancy asked O’Neill to pay for an independent review of the project’s structure, as well as additional consultants to examine proposed utility and site work.

The building commissioner said he also wants to look at a below-ground parking garage included in the project’s design because of issues with surrounding wetlands.

In addition, O’Neill will have to make a $440,000 payment to Belmont, the cost of the permit based on the size of the project’s construction budget, he said.

“If I had to guess, I do believe it’s weeks rather than months,’’ Clancy said on when he might have all the information needed to issue a permit.

The Pennsylvania-based developer has said it hopes to get a green light from Belmont before December, and plans to start construction soon after the permit is granted, according to Steve Corridan, the project manager for O’Neill.

A final decision on the timeline for construction is up to O’Neill and the development partnership behind the proposal, Corridan said. Pressed, he indicated work could start early next year.

“More than likely we would start right away,’’ he said.

The developer also contends it has more than adequately addressed any environmental issues on the site, with a plan that puts a large block of the land in question under conservation restrictions.

The developer has also contended that the battle over the project has less to do with the environment and more to do with lower-cost housing.

Belmont Uplands is being developed under the state’s Chapter 40B affordable-housing law, which allows projects setting aside a certain percentage of units for income-eligible residents to bypass many local zoning restrictions. Under the proposal, about 40 apartments would be set aside for tenants making 50 percent of the area’s median income, about $45,000 a year for a family of four.

“We look at this as finally an opportunity for Belmont to start doing its part for affordable housing,’’ Corridan said. “They have one of the lowest percentages of affordable housing in the inner suburbs.’’

Meanwhile, the Friends of the Alewife Reservation group is pursuing its court appeal of a decision by state environmental regulators to give a green light to Belmont Uplands.

The town’s Conservation Commission, which had rejected O’Neill’s proposal only to be overruled by the state, has filed its own appeal in court.

The lawsuit by the Friends of the Alewife Reservation seeks to overturn this summer’s Department of Environmental Protection decision, which came after years of debate and regulatory appeals.

According to the group’s lawsuit, filed in Middlesex County Superior Court, the state agency’s decision ignored testimony at a state hearing held last year, and did not fully take into account the damage the project would cause to wetlands around the planned development site.