1959-02-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2-13-59 in the records of the of his neighbors had Ing that it would be regard to the Lowell the previous records hearing. -2- present hearing. He said that many not come to the present hearing believ- a r epetItion of the last one held in Estates subdivision. Mr. Grindle said would be incorporated into the present Mr. Hammer asked a number of questions about the location of sidewalks and the width of streets within the subdivision. He suggested that the pavement of the road connecting to Lowell Street be widened to make what he be- lieved would be a safer place of entrance from and exit to a much -traveled way. Mr. Maurice J. Reutter of 6 Fairlawn Lane expressed the opinion that the proposed road should be widened. Mr. Frederick W. Crawford of 276 Lowell Street asked if said street could be widened at the intersection of the proposed subdivision. It was pointed out that all streets in the subdivi- sion were to be 50 feet in width, all road pavements 24 feet wide, and sidewalks to be 5 feet in width. It was also pointed out that the location of sidewalks had not been deter- mined but would be located on all principal streets. Mr. Grindle noted that Lowell Street was a State highway and not under jurisdiction of the Town. He said that the matter of additional pavement width for a portion of the subdivision street discussed would be taken unser consideration by the Board. Mr. John Castelli of 194 Lowell Street asked if the proposed subdivision plan might be modified so that a con- nection could be provided to his land in such a way that it could be developed more economicallir. Mr. Castelli was asked to discuss the matter after the hearing with the Messrs. DeVries of the Lexirton Development Company. A number of comments and questions in regard to drains in Lowell Street were made and asked. It was sug- gested that the persons interested in the matters involved refer them to the Lexington. Department of Public Works. In answer to Mr. Hammer's question regarding what guarantee there would be that work as shown on the subdivision would be completed, he was informed of the method of either filing a performance bond or a covenant, the provision of such in- struments being read. Mr. George DeVries said that his com- pany was asking that all the subdivision be approved under the provisions of a covenant. Mr. Reutter asked who supervised the work to be per- formed as shown on the subdivision plan. He was informed that this was the responsibility of the Superintendent of Public Works, that when all the work was completed to his satisfaction he so notified the Planning Board in writing, and upon receipt of this notification the Board was in a position 1 L 1J