Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1956-05-28PLANNING BOARD MEEPING ' May 28, 1956 A closed meeting of the Planning Board was held in the Town Engineer's Room, Town Office Building, on Monday, May 28, 1956 at 7:35 p.m. Present were Members Abbott, Burnell, Grindle, Hathaway and Jaquith, Planning Director Snow and the secretary. Mr. Stevens, Town Counsel, was present also from 8:10 to 8:35 p.m. It was moved by Mr. Jaquith, seconded by Mr. Burnell and unanimously.voted that Mr. Hathaway be made chairman pro tempore. Read to -the Board was Mr. Adams' letter of May 28, 1956 in which he submitted his resignation as Chairman of the Board, stating that while he would continue as a member of the Board he found it necessary to be absent during the next few months from many of the Board's Monday evening meetings. It was moved by Mr. Abbott, seconded by Mr. Grind.le and unani- mously VOTED: that Mr. Adams' resignation be accepted with ' regret, said resignation to be effective upon election of a successor, and that a 1dtter be sent to Mr. Adams expressing the Boardts deep appreciation for his services to the Board. Mr. Roland M. Greeley, Chairman of the School Sites Committee, met with the Board at 8:00 p.m. to see if it would revise its recommendations in regard to the prelimi- nary plans for subdividing the Lidberg property - (see Minutes of September 6, 1955) - in view of the fact that said committee was interested in acquiring a portion of the Lidberg property for a junior high school site. Mr. Greeley said that the committee was interested in having the plans revised so that there might be a direct access to the proposed school site and asked if the Board would authorise Mr. Snow to make a study of the preliminary subdivision plan with this in mind. MR. ADAMS RESIGNATION AS CHAIRMAN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE When asked if the committee had determined the area and the location of the land it wished to recommend for a site, Mr. Greeley replied that the committee had decided upon a location but not the boundaries. He said that it had been agreed that the committee would recommend acquiring all the land south of a revised road location, the site fronting for a considerable distance on said road for the reason that ' citizens desire to have a school front on a road and not located in back of lots. He stated further that the committee did not wish to make a final decision on the matter until it had talked with the owner of the land. It was pointed out by the Board that the developer was having definitive subdivision plans prepared based upon the preliminary plan which had received approval with modifi- cations by the Board and that the developer should be informed of the situation before incurring any further engineering ex- penses. It was decided that Mr. Greeley would notify the developer of his discussion with the Planning Board and that the Planning Director was to prepare revised studies for con- sideration by said Board and the School Sites Committee. Mr. Greeley left the meeting at 8:40 p.m. at which time the Board took under consideration the following Form A applications which had been submitted for a determination of Planning Board jurisdiction: FWMS A #56-39, submitted on May 18, 1956 by Ralph D. Cataldo; plan entitled "Plan of Land in Lexington-Mass.m, scale: l" = 401, dated May 8, 1956, Miller and Nylander, C.E.'s & Surveyors, Lexington, Mass. #56-42, submitted on May 28, 1956 by Harold E. Stevens for the Town of Lexington; plan entitled "Plan Showing Proposed Drainage Easement on Lots 6 and 7 Cherry St., Lexington -Mass.", scale: 1" m 201, dated May 7, 1956, Richard S. Gayer, Toon Engineer. It was moved, seconded and unanimously VOTED: that the plans accompanying Applications #56-39 and #56-42 be signed bearing the endorsement "Lexington Planning Board approval not required under subdivi- sion control law." OFFICE The Board discussed the problem of obtaining a perma E7QUIPMENT nent secretary to relieve Mr. Snow of some of the Board's routine administrative work and in this connection authorized him to purchase for the Planning Board office a secretary's desk and chair and a second-hand typewriter. PROPOSED The Board reviewed a number of neighborhood boundary NEIGHBORHOOD studies which had been prepared by members with the objective PLAN of formulating a tentative composite plan to serve as a goal toward which to direct planning efforts. Before studying these. plans further or considering detailed plans for the development of various neighborhoods, Mr. Snow recommended that the Board study Lexington's town -wide school planning problem. He made this recommendation on the basis that a neighborhood is con- sidered by some planners to be the service area of an elementary school and that in Lexington the need for school sites was urgent. SCHOOL Mr. Snow said he recognized that the question immediately PLANNING arose, "Is not Lexingtonts school planning problem the particular concern of the School Committee?" and that without much doubt 1 1 1 ' the answer is "yes." He pointed out, however, that the Committee faces the same basic problem the Planning Board faces, namely: that the Committee has two primary functions, one of adminis- tration and a second of planning. To point out the role each agency has to play in making a study of school planning and to indicate how inclusive a really comprehensive study of the over- all problem maybe, Mr. Snow outlined the following general procedure used by some planners as a guide. He said that this approach to the long-range planning of school buildings consisted of finding the answers to eight questions: The first three questions concern the educational phase - 1. What will be the community's education policy? 2. What kind of a teaching program will best serve the community? 3. What curricular changes will be needed? The next four, the architectural phase - 4. How many children will be served? 5. What facilities will be. needed? 6. Where will new schools be located? 7. To what extent can the old buildings be used? and the last the financial phase - 8. How much money can be raised? Mr. Snow suggested that at a later date the Board review some of the work of the School Committee is doing and the answers to the educational phase questions noted above but that for the present the Board concern itself only with those questions involv- ing the architectural phase of school planning. He then discussed the following outline, illustrating various points with charts and diagrams: 4. How many children will be served? Forecasting enrollment is not all guesswork. Many factors in- fluence school enrollment - national, state, and local popula- tion trends, depressions and boom years, emigration and immi- gration. If a f6recast is based on sound surveys, fairly accurate results can be obtained. . The procedure outlined below is usually followed: a. A population survey is made, the Bureau of Census being the chief source of information. At state and local levels, emigration, immigration and birth rates are studied. Locally, the possibility of new industries coming are considered. b. An enrollment survey is made, again the Bureau of Census is the chief 'source of information. The U.S. Office of Fducation also has some excellent data on national and state enrollment trends. For local trends, past enrollments are surveyed. To answer the question, plot the curve of past growth and extend for future growth, remembering that national and state growths are reflected in local enrollment. By this graphic method future enrollment can be calculated for the next five, ten, and twenty years and applied directly to a long-range building plan. 5. What facilities will be needed? In order to answer this question, answers to questions one through four will have to be studied. Jy knowing what is to be taught, how, and to how many students, the facilities needed can be determined by two steps: a. Find what kind of facilities are needed. By a careful study of the recommended curriculum and of the established educa- cational policy, a program can be developed which lists the types of teaching spaces needed such as classrooms, labora- tories, auditoriums, recreational space (indoor and outdoor), and special facilities, such as libraries and visual aid . roans. The type of equipment needed in this program should not be forgotten. b. Determine how many are needed. From the enrollment forecast the number of students will be found who will use the school plants for the next five, ten, and twenty years. The space and equipment needed for students in each grade should then ' be calculated. All this information is then included in the program. With these findings the educational needs can be translated into building needs by formulating a specific building program based on facts, not guesswork. This phase of plan- ning requires much skill and deliberation. 6. Where will new schools be located? This problem is likely to be the most difficult one since it involves such varied and complex factors as shifting population, relative land values, street and utilities development, resi- dential growth, zoning ordinances, and physical boundaries. A populated area which needs a school now may not need a school ten years from now. An area which is uninhabited now may re- quire a school within ten years. Sometimes a property owner,' whose land is being considered as a school site, will boost his price to an unreasonable figure so as to take full advantage of a too -eager school committee. Sometimes a reluctant property owner whose land is being considered can arouse the citizens in such a manner as to cause them to turn down a well-planned build- ing program. To combat this, facts must be ready to present to the public. Obtaining these facts is not an easy job. A great amount of study will be necessary but it will pay off because ' poor selection of new sites can waste many dollars for taxpayers. The importance of this phase of long-range planning cannot be over -emphasized. 1 There are a number of methods used in finding facts related to site selection. All these methods may not apply to any one community and some which might apply may have been omitted. Accordingly we can adapt these methods to our own situation by following this reliable course known as Seven Steps in Select- ing a Good School Site. a. Find out where the students live b. Find out where the pre-school children live c. Find out what land is available d. Check up on the zoning by-laws e. Determine the boundaries which might hinder residential expansion f. Study traffic patterns g. Determine in which directions the community will grow %. To what extent can the old buildings be used? Existing school plants represent a great investment to the tax- payers. In any long-range building program the old buildings must be used to the fullest advantage. However, it may be economical in the long-range view to abandon an old building which requires much maintenance. It may be found best to tear down others because they are unsafe or unfit for educational - purposes. Of course there will be also existing buildings that will fit satisfactorily into the ultimate school plant. These may or may not require major alterations. The final decision on whether a building should be abandoned or renovated should be withheld until a careful survey is made of the existing school plant. This survey usually consists of the following considera- tions: a. Educational - Does the building suit the educational program? If not, is it economically feasible to renovate it? b. Maintenance - Does the building require heavy maintenance? Would immediate repair out maintenance enough to justify the expense? Or would it be beat to tear down the building? c. Safety - Is the building safe? Can it be made safe without unreasonable expenditures? d. Location - Is the building properly located? Does the loca- tion of the existing building offset the advan- tages or disadvantages of the structure? The meeting adjourned at 10145 p.m. 4". Levi G. Burnell, Jr. Clerk